So Long, Bugs....

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Red, Feb 11, 2019.

  1. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,437
    1,042
    178
    Mar 17, 2015
    You'll have to explain a little more how I said that, or how I emphasized race. I guess I'm slow and am missing something. Sure, writings by the English and Spanish make it clear racist attitudes toward the peoples they encountered was a factor in relations toward those native peoples. Among the English, the one notable exception was Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist church in America and ostracized by the Puritan leaders for his belief that the natives in New England had a right to their lands, etc. He wasn't perfect, however. The English also introduced total warfare among the natives by two massacres, the Pequot in 1637, the Narragansett in 1675, in which hundreds of women and children were burned to death. This type of ethic cleansing warfare was unknown among the natives.

    Death by lack of immunity to European diseases preceded settlement in the Northeast. European fishermen were working the banks in the Northeast in the mid 1400's, before Columbus even sailed, but the plague of 1616 basically completely wiped out the Massachusett, and greatly reduced the Wampanoag, so the Puritans found the area devoid of native villages in 1630. The Narragansett escaped that decimation by hiding out on the islands in Narragansett Bay, and emerged as the most powerful tribal group as a result. I've often wondered how Verrazano's visit to the Narragansett in 1524 could not have resulted in death by disease, and maybe it did.

    This "Great Dying" by disease was not racism. Germ theory for disease was unknown, the Europeans were not saying "let's give them smallpox, it's our best weapon". But they did see this dying as "God's will", clearing the wilderness for the English, and that notion was certainly racist.

    At any rate, racism was present among the English and Spanish, less so the French. It was just a natural assumption of these groups of Europeans toward the people they encountered. Disease and warfare that included advanced weaponry on the part of the Europeans led to the decimation of the numbers of people living in the Americas. If this latest study is weak and poorly argued, and not supported by the evidence, so be it.

    I just thought NPC D4617 bringing up racism was not really relevant to the argument regarding global cooling, since that racism would have been present anyway, regardless of climate. I did not emphasize race at all, I questioned why racism was relevant. Racism was an obvious component in the settlement of the Americas by the European powers, but not pertinent to the argument made by this Little Ice Age study. Racism, in the attitude of Europeans toward native peoples, seems like an entirely separate subject to me.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2019
  2. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,437
    1,042
    178
    Mar 17, 2015
    If you feel that a logical analysis on your part can draw that conclusion, based on your reading of that comment, whatever makes you comfortable I guess.

    As TroutBum pointed out, it was a novella. My weakness for sure, people prefer sound bites.

    A novella to simply point out the Little Ice Age involved cooling.

    At any rate, I also stated "If mistakes in the scientific methodology are evident, they will be highlighted in any rebuttals that may be published in response to the study." So it's not like I said this study is irrefutable and proof positive of anything. You infer I brought up race. OK, again, if that's what you infer from all that, fine.
     
  3. idestroyedthetoilet

    idestroyedthetoilet Well-Known Member

    1,769
    815
    143
    Apr 20, 2018
    Pretty much this. I took it at face value back in college, sounded like something worth paying attention to. That was before it got weaponized politically and the fear mongerers came out of the wood works. Then my attitude changed to OFFS GMAFB.

    I used to think end of days fear was an American Christian thing, but apparently worrying about the world ending is a universal human trait. Y'all are all freaking wierdos.

    At any rate, I've been in environmental for long enough to know that technological advancement is the only way to make meaningful change. You can pay lip service by pushing the "we need to do something" mantra, but at the end of the day you aren't doing a damn thing to help. All these token little things you do to make yourself feel better about who you are don't make a dent, so pat yourselves on the back for getting up in a tissy but not doing anything at all, if it helps you sleep better at night. Technology is the only solution and you can't force it to advance. We can pretend we can with laws, acts, and rules, but the truth is those by and large follow tech advancement, they don't force it.

    So sit back and enjoy the ride, and laugh at the silly people preaching Armagheddon.
     
  4. One Brow

    One Brow Well-Known Member

    12,727
    1,736
    228
    May 26, 2010
    You can't force it, but you can alter the pace by directing investment and sentiment in the importance of the technologies.
     
  5. fishonjazz

    fishonjazz Well-Known Member Contributor 2019 Award Winner 2018 Award Winner

    54,655
    10,237
    388
    Nov 4, 2010
    Good response

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
     
  6. idestroyedthetoilet

    idestroyedthetoilet Well-Known Member

    1,769
    815
    143
    Apr 20, 2018
    Agreed. We do, and should where prudent. A strong education system/foundation is the obvious best starting point.
     
    LogGrad98 likes this.
  7. idestroyedthetoilet

    idestroyedthetoilet Well-Known Member

    1,769
    815
    143
    Apr 20, 2018
    BTW, I expected that response from you. You're kinda predictable at times.
     
  8. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,610
    857
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    Red's post was damn good, almost all the way through. I'd call him a good scientist for the objective treatment of the subject. The comment disparaging the straw man idiocy about all scientists corruptly or evilly knowing they're lying about it, of course, merely reflects the smugness of the political hucksters who want to diss the questioning or non-conforming.

    I decided we had a problem when I first heard that some folks in Massachusetts were ready to label disbelievers as "deniers". As long as this is the attitude of the warmist cult, I can't believe there is enough freedom of speech, nor enough scientists out there with the latitude to challenge the "science".

    As long as the "solution" is a political treaty like the present climate accord, the measure should be fought tenaciously.

    Do you deny that global overpopulation is a concern of many leaders today? Do you deny that the high-level support for illegal immigration is related to concerns about overpopulation? Getting people here where they will have Planned Parenthood help.… where there will be massive economic incentives to reduce childbearing, is one of the tools intended to curb global overpopulation. Do you deny that the Agenda 21 standards for community management are designed to prevent unmanaged populations? Do you deny that the carelessness of progressives about the health and safety of the illegal migrants is pretty much just blown off because, ultimately, we can't afford to care to save human life? Do you deny that the "sanctuary cities/states" with massive unsanitary conditions, including the homeless encampments, is not really a concern about saving human lives, but a willingness to let the situation work itself out, Darwin-style, with the callous "knowing" that overpopulation will thereby be blunted.

    Just before David Rockefeller passed last year, he invited Bill Gates, George Soros, Oprah Winfrey, and some others to his place and invited them to express their views about the major problems we face in this world. Overpopulation was the hands-down biggest issue. The Ford Foundation was successful in bringing China to the one-child policy, and David Rockefeller highly praised Chairman Mao for all his actions that averted the population bomb in China.... with nary a quibble about any human rights issues.

    I think we need to pay attention to the bugs, and do what it will take to end that decline....reduce pesticide use, at least. I don't like the engineered agricultural "solutions" except for say soil and water care to make good use of what we have.

    But it really just gags me that nobody here is talking about the politically engineered.... planned.... massive reduction in human population.

    I disagree with Bill Gates on population. I believe we can and should plan to increase human population, and plan and implement the technological and infrastructural facilities it will take to nicely employ many more humans in the quest for a better future for more of us. I don't think global warming is gonna be that dreaded extinction event, just an opportunity to develop in a better way.....

    And, so..... on to the stars, my friends.
     
  9. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,610
    857
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    People are generally just too complex for simple caricature. And arguments really force us to oversimply issues.

    I'm sure that "fitting in" with the "in crowd" isn't always just in writing research proposals, or research reports. A lot of it goes down with coffee in the friendly cafeteria encounters.

    you using a hate-speech term, designed to "otherize" a class of humans, puts you in the front seat of the next pogrom.
     
  10. One Brow

    One Brow Well-Known Member

    12,727
    1,736
    228
    May 26, 2010
    I hope so. Complete unpredictability would be boring.
     
  11. fishonjazz

    fishonjazz Well-Known Member Contributor 2019 Award Winner 2018 Award Winner

    54,655
    10,237
    388
    Nov 4, 2010
    Also, consistency can be taken as a compliment

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
     
    One Brow likes this.
  12. Alfalfa

    Alfalfa Well-Known Member

    1,947
    1,396
    203
    Oct 10, 2018
    lmao. How can the guy who constantly shouts about Marxist progressive globalists be that lacking in self-awareness. Hilarious. All your posts are about demonizing others, buddy. All of them. You talk about nothing else.
     
    TroutBum likes this.
  13. TroutBum

    TroutBum My Member's Premium Contributor

    11,852
    1,614
    228
    May 26, 2010
    Which is why I consistently fail. I’m just awesome like that.
     
    fishonjazz likes this.
  14. babe

    babe Well-Known Member

    10,610
    857
    203
    Dec 7, 2010
    Marxist is an objective term for people who have studied the writings of Karl Marx and/or who advocate any of Marx's assertions about economics, history, or politics. It is not "hate" speech.... except among those who hate Marx for any reason, if they are consumed with a hate for Marx, which many if not most humans today are not that affected.

    Progressives, similarly, are people who are objectively defined by their "progressive" ideas, beliefs, or political advocacy. Some people might hate them, but they are themselves taking on that label, and often proud of it.

    "deniers" or "global warming deniers", and almost all other people who are called "deniers" of anything, are not claiming the label or accurately defined by the constructed slur, which almost always is false in more than one of the things the accusers are asserting. It is unequivocally true hate speech.

    The folks in here, including alfalfa, are generally pretty smart, if not genius in intelligence. I am simply pointing out that the loose language is not appropriate, and hoping you will choose to apply better terminologies to your arguments.

    The better you do, the more fun it is for me and the more credible you will be.....
     
  15. Alfalfa

    Alfalfa Well-Known Member

    1,947
    1,396
    203
    Oct 10, 2018
    It's the opposite. Climate change deniers is the objective term, since it refers to those who prefer to play scientists behind a computer screen and ignore all actual evidence that doesn't fit their fantasy. You should know this, being one. Your attacks on anyone who sees things differently from you as a Marxist (even those who are very capitalist, like Bulletproof) is the demonizing. Or at least it would be if you haven't done it so much, about so many different views, as to completely rob it of all meaning.
     

Share This Page