Global Warming

Post questions or suggestions here.

Postby Borommakot » Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:47 am

What can we do to accelerate global warming?
I have property inland that I would love if it became waterfront property. I need to have a time frame for buiding my dock. I also think that the property value on my investments would skyrocket because there is much less land left to live on. would anyone like to chip in for a large investment in land in Idaho, I think that you would get your money's worth, if you survive the flood. Also, the rate of return would increase dramatically if we can accelerate the global warming process. I've been burning matches almost non-stop for a couple of years now, and I have even fed refried beans to my cat.
All in all, it would be great to speed up the process.
The Contrapositive Optimist
Borommakot
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:56 am

Postby Nordicvs » Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:58 pm

Borommakot wrote:All in all, it would be great to speed up the process.


Quite right. It's like watching someone on his death bed, hooked up to machines, tubes jammed in every hole and a few other places, simply existing while rotting away in meaninglessness and misery. The ethical thing to do is not slow down the inevitable, prolonging it as long as possible...no, the truly compassionate thing to do is free him, put him out of his sorrow and misery, let him be at peace.

"Environmentalism" is just a life-support system to delay the inevitable, quell the whining of those annoying hippies, and profit from the destruction of the natural world as long as possible. It's cruel, selfish, and cowardly.

A "wrath of god" type disaster is what we need; floods are good, but we tend to survive those and pick up where we left off. Rapidly increasing the temperature of the planet is something humans will adapt to anyway, depending how rapid (increasing it a hundred degrees in a single day, however, might do the trick). We'll do nearly anything to save our pathetic asses, at the expense of absolutely everything; we'll hack our own children to bits to avoid sacrificing our precious selves for any reason---we'll wear shimmering suits to protect ourselves from the effects of our Swiss-cheese atmosphere, move underground, or cower in domes and exist on pills and synthetic nurishment, until we get the collective gumption to leave Wasteland Earth and start it all over again on another planet. Collective Human Stupidity II, the sequel.

So, I'm hoping for WWIII with lots of nukes---thanks again to Einstein for this merciful killswitch---because while a super-viral pandemic looks promising, some always survive, and will develop an immunity and move back into the system and keep it going. It's like when your home is infested with rats: you'll never be sure they're all dead, so it's best to throw everything you own in there, seal it all up, burn it to the ground and pulverize whatever's left so it can never be rebuilt, and then move somewhere else.
User avatar
Nordicvs
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

True.

Postby Borommakot » Wed Mar 28, 2007 2:09 pm

It's going to happen, so make boats. Make insanely large investments in nautical technology and hope the stock market doesn't crash when the world as we know it ends. Either you will end up with money or you'll be dead, but it really isn't up to you. Plus if society survives above water, then your children and grandchildren will be insanely rich.
The Contrapositive Optimist
Borommakot
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:56 am

Re: True.

Postby Nordicvs » Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:03 pm

Borommakot wrote:It's going to happen, so make boats. Make insanely large investments in nautical technology and hope the stock market doesn't crash when the world as we know it ends. Either you will end up with money or you'll be dead, but it really isn't up to you. Plus if society survives above water, then your children and grandchildren will be insanely rich.


All of that happened in 5600 BC when the Black Sea spilt into the Caspian Sea and then flooded Mesopotamia, obliterating the first cities there in pre-Sumerian times. It's happened many times---dozens of flood myths point to several instances.

In short, that was where we went wrong in the first place, so your proposition is merely setting the needle of this broken record back to the beginning, and we'll do the same thing all over again. We always do. Why? Quest for permanence---the bloated ego of the feminine (whose self-objectification is civilization itself) that can't stop manipulating and planning and trying to control everything, instead of leaving things be, instead of trusting in Nature, instead of evolving.

We're too specialized, too left-brained, to possess the wisdom to view the big picture and learn from our mistakes.
User avatar
Nordicvs
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 4:38 pm

Re: True.

Postby Faust » Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:27 pm

Nordicvs wrote:
Borommakot wrote:It's going to happen, so make boats. Make insanely large investments in nautical technology and hope the stock market doesn't crash when the world as we know it ends. Either you will end up with money or you'll be dead, but it really isn't up to you. Plus if society survives above water, then your children and grandchildren will be insanely rich.


All of that happened in 5600 BC when the Black Sea spilt into the Caspian Sea and then flooded Mesopotamia, obliterating the first cities there in pre-Sumerian times. It's happened many times---dozens of flood myths point to several instances.

In short, that was where we went wrong in the first place, so your proposition is merely setting the needle of this broken record back to the beginning, and we'll do the same thing all over again. We always do. Why? Quest for permanence---the bloated ego of the feminine (whose self-objectification is civilization itself) that can't stop manipulating and planning and trying to control everything, instead of leaving things be, instead of trusting in Nature, instead of evolving.

We're too specialized, too left-brained, to possess the wisdom to view the big picture and learn from our mistakes.


no it's just that you're really really bitter, that's all. Any flaws of humanity that you see you call it "feminine" it's really lame. Men and women both want to control things, we want to survive and there's nothing "feminine" about it. We can't evolve if we're wiped out, so I don't know what you mean there. You're really bitter nordic, and you've had a few bitter experiences with women, so you automatically just call any supposed flaws "feminine" as if the "masculine" is some pure and holy thing. How is civilization feminine? And hunter-gathering is old, there's nothing superior about it compared to agriculture. What about vegetarians? They can't survive by picking berries all day. You may be some brutish carnivore who wants to have childish dreams of hunting animals and being "masculine" but i'm a vegetarian, and i want a roof over my head when there's a really wet storm, i want comfort yes, what's wrong with comfort? I don't want to waste my life trying to survive all day.
User avatar
Faust
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Faust » Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:49 pm

Nordicvs wrote:
Faust13 wrote:hahah you're kidding me. Global warming's a phony hype, all those scientists are getting new nice jobs and they want to keep it that way.


You're obviously young or from a hot climate, or both; it has been warming and it's continuing. Those in northern regions feel it the most because winters have shrunk and it's more obvious (whereas before we'd get one sorta warmish winter every five, six years, it's now the opposite---one cold winter every five-six years); precipitation in my region has dropped from 19 inches per year (1920 to 1970, when I was born) to barely 10. These are the climatic shifts that occur in what we (inaccurately, granted) call "global warming." A desert is forming in the southern part of the province where before it was just prairie.

Very wet regions get wetter (providing their forest cover isn't being bulldozed---much precipitation is generated from the plant portion of the biosphere, as well as serving as the planet's natural air filtration system), moderately dry areas get drier, warm areas get hot, and hot areas get hotter. Also, storm activity (and severity) increases as a result. All of this has been tediously documented---it's a pity that people like you poo-pooh it ignorantly and then go back to swaying their asses to Moby.

Not to mention the ozone hole that's been forming since the late '80s over northern North America---increased skin cancer reports per capita is staggering evidence; I personally can attest to (as a former sun-tanner) never before having need of sunblock until 1993, during which I received second degree burns after half the time I'd usually spend out in it (a couple years earlier), which never happened before in my life.

Millions of cities weather stats over the last two decades is more evidence, not to mention rising sea levels.

Perhaps don't be so dismissive and blasé unless you've actually given this more than one snotty moment's thought, hey?

Faust13 wrote:It's not going to happen, the evidence is not even that good. And Antarctica has been experiencing a cooling effect recently.


Bullshit. There are fucking plants growing in Anarctica where---for over 20 million years---there were glaciers and thick ice packs and snow.

You think one cool year means it's all bosh? Mean global averages change all the time---fuckwads twist these stats to "prove" that global warming is crap so companies can be feminine and not take responsibility for their despicable and reckless ecocide. (Big companies actually hire "scientists" to do this.) Things like volcanoes erupting, for example, cause seasonal variances in mean averages that attribute to a year that doesn't break the previous year's record high temperature.

What's more likely---that "global warming" is a vast conspiracy to generate a few million in revenue to sell some products that people stop buying after a few years anyway or just lose interest in, or that it's called crap by vast multinational multi-billion-dollar corporations who collectively possess the ethics of a maggot-ridden corpse and hire child labour from third world nations, move a franchise into a country with water-shortage problems, buying up the land legally that has water and then selling it back to the people in the form of Coca-Cola, who lie about the lies they spin to increase profit margins, employ teams of demographic analysts and psychologist flunkies and public relations whores who all help polish their overall putrid image into one of "green" or "earth-friendly," all with a big shit-eating grin; who shirk work-codes concerning worker safety to save money, and would sooner kill, then fuck, their own mothers than spend a dime to store waste properly rather than simply and cheaply dumping it into a river or someone's backyard...?

Anyone who goes by the name of Faust should be swift enough to figure that one out...


This past winter was pretty cold to me, but it did snow late, but that could be a cyclical thing, and i live in canada. and again the winter was still cold. Yes plants in Antarctica, it's been doing that probably at the beginning of the century, things change.

I don't agree with corporations doing all that
User avatar
Faust
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Borommakot » Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:16 am

In short, that was where we went wrong in the first place, so your proposition is merely setting the needle of this broken record back to the beginning, and we'll do the same thing all over again. We always do. Why? Quest for permanence---the bloated ego of the feminine (whose self-objectification is civilization itself) that can't stop manipulating and planning and trying to control everything, instead of leaving things be, instead of trusting in Nature, instead of evolving.


I'm a man. So are you calling me feminine? So what exactly would you suggest, if not to make boats? I've been very jovial about this whole matter only because of one reason. The world got colder; we survived.
The Contrapositive Optimist
Borommakot
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:56 am

Postby Faust » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:09 am

Borommakot wrote:
In short, that was where we went wrong in the first place, so your proposition is merely setting the needle of this broken record back to the beginning, and we'll do the same thing all over again. We always do. Why? Quest for permanence---the bloated ego of the feminine (whose self-objectification is civilization itself) that can't stop manipulating and planning and trying to control everything, instead of leaving things be, instead of trusting in Nature, instead of evolving.


I'm a man. So are you calling me feminine? So what exactly would you suggest, if not to make boats? I've been very jovial about this whole matter only because of one reason. The world got colder; we survived.


He's going nuts over his made up "feminine" conspiracy..
Amor fati
User avatar
Faust
 
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Unidian » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:53 am

This "feminine" business is the major Achilles heel around here. Everything ends up coming back to that. This place is totally enslaved to its fear of the feminine. Even if one buys that they are defining "femininity" as "unconsciousness" or "ignorance" (and putting aside the ludicrous fact that they deny misogyny in the same breath), there's still a big problem. A bunch of allegedly "enlightened" individuals are letting "unconsciousness" dictate the agenda to an apalling extent.

I'm not talking about discussing it, because if they really do view it as a major problem, they will naturally to discuss it. Rather, I'm talking about how various aspersions and accusations about "femininity" are allowed (and encouraged) to take over practically every thread like a cancer, including threads where that sort of thing has no sane or reasonable business. There is no group I know of anywhere more firmly attached to the concept of "femininity" than this one.

Of course, their predictable reply will be that the attachment is mine, and that by bringing all of this up, I'm just trying to prevent the evils of femininity from being exposed by them in order to continue indulging my attachment comfortably. Whatever their faults, they are a very consistent bunch, and their scripted playbook doesn't vary much over the years.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Unidian
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm

Postby Borommakot » Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:32 pm

Look, I'm a man. I don't like being called feminine. And I really wasn't going nuts. I totally agree that if the people here could get over the whole femininity thing that maybe some threads would stay relevant to their subject. I think every guy on this forum is almost literally obsessed with making themselves feel better by putting the blame for anything on women. Which is absolutely ridiculous. I'm sure I would be extremely pissed off if I was a woman. Luckily, I'm very very easy going and rarely take unimportant things seriously. Not that the femininity problem on this forum is unimportant, only that it isn't a life-changing issue.
The Contrapositive Optimist
Borommakot
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:56 am

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:30 pm

Borommakot wrote:Look, I'm a man. I don't like being called feminine.


And yet, females here are expected to want to be called masculine - meanwhile we develop bad connotations to the term "feminine." Even feminists did not turn the word "masculine" into a dirty word - they just developed the term "male chauvinist pig" - which has the already negative descriptor "chauvinist" in it.
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Unidian » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:14 pm

Well, a lot of the females here are pretty obviously self-loathing types who either subconsciously or openly resent being women for whatever reason. There's undoubtedly a sad story in each case. And then there's Sue, who IMO is a fascinating example of how far some women will go and how much they will sacrifice psychologically in order to keep a father figure in their children's lives. My suspicion is that she long ago learned the only way to keep David around (and therefore at least somewhat involved with their son) was to parrot him. By now, she probably believes all of it.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Unidian
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:43 pm

Good gracious, he even got her to call herself a man. You have to know she wouldn't have done that if not for this "woman" philosophy, so you know that is not an example of thinking for herself - so ironically, by calling herself a man, she exhibits "woman" as bad as the worst of them. What a puppy.
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Shardrol » Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:59 pm

Unidian wrote:And then there's Sue, who IMO is a fascinating example of how far some women will go and how much they will sacrifice psychologically in order to keep a father figure in their children's lives. My suspicion is that she long ago learned the only way to keep David around (and therefore at least somewhat involved with their son) was to parrot him. By now, she probably believes all of it.

Wow. And you think QRS are misogynistic?

So the idea is that women (in this case Sue) don't really believe their own ideas but just parrot what men say in order to hang onto them in a relationship? This is not all that different from the kind of generalizations QRS make, which you usually find so offensive.

How come you don't decide that David is just parroting Kevin in order to keep him as a friend, or that Dan is parroting David? Or maybe you're snuggling up to Elizabeth in the hope of getting into her pants. How come it's just Sue whose motives are suspect?
.
User avatar
Shardrol
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Postby Unidian » Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:11 pm

It's not just Sue. For an example closer to home, isn't it possible that you're being hostile to me because you happened to catch me on one of my (increasingly rare) bad days a while back in a chat room, where some ugly words were exchanged?

Maybe not, I dunno. It was a while ago and I was using another name. Just a speculation.

And I noted with amusement that you employed the classic strategy of "accuse anyone who suggests that QRS philosophy is misogynistic of being the actual misogynists themselves." That one is sooooooo played out, dude. I mean really done to death.

I'm sticking to my guns about Sue. BTW, you'll note that I did suggest that she believes in QRS philosophy by now, after who knows how many years of it. Why would I suggest that she wouldn't believe it to begin with except to keep David involved in her son's life? Well, because it's fiercely anti-feminine and most self-respecting women don't want anything to do with that, for what should be obvious reasons. And also because their children are of the utmost importance to most women. I bet that's a "misogynistic" statement too, though, lol.

As for why I don't suggest that David parrots Kevin or Kevin parrots Dan, that is because their individual styles are different enough to suggest to me that they are independent thinkers who simply happen to influence and agree with one another to a large extent.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Unidian
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm

Does Hello Kitty cause global warming?

Postby DHodges » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:30 pm

Unidian wrote:This "feminine" business is the major Achilles heel around here. Everything ends up coming back to that. This place is totally enslaved to its fear of the feminine. Even if one buys that they are defining "femininity" as "unconsciousness" or "ignorance" (and putting aside the ludicrous fact that they deny misogyny in the same breath), there's still a big problem. A bunch of allegedly "enlightened" individuals are letting "unconsciousness" dictate the agenda to an apalling extent.


I agree. If the issue is unconsciousness, or ignorance, or passivity, or weakness, or herdliness or whatever, it's probably better to talk about those qualities directly where they come up, rather than throwing them all in the same basket. The basket is a distraction, especially since it has sexist connotations.

The apparent misogyny seems to turn what should be philosophical issues into a political issue.
User avatar
DHodges
 
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Postby Imadrongo » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:23 am

A "wrath of god" type disaster is what we need; floods are good, but we tend to survive those and pick up where we left off. Rapidly increasing the temperature of the planet is something humans will adapt to anyway, depending how rapid (increasing it a hundred degrees in a single day, however, might do the trick). We'll do nearly anything to save our pathetic asses, at the expense of absolutely everything; we'll hack our own children to bits to avoid sacrificing our precious selves for any reason---we'll wear shimmering suits to protect ourselves from the effects of our Swiss-cheese atmosphere, move underground, or cower in domes and exist on pills and synthetic nurishment, until we get the collective gumption to leave Wasteland Earth and start it all over again on another planet. Collective Human Stupidity II, the sequel.
What we need is to eliminate everyone who isn't an enlightened genius. If we eliminated humans altogether they could evolve again and nobody would be around to monitor them. ;)
User avatar
Imadrongo
 
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:52 am

Postby Unidian » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:59 am

Who gets to decide who is an "enlightened genius?" Not the people themselves, of course, since they would all claim to be one in order to survive. So who, then? David Quinn? You? Me? Adolph Hitler?

I hope you weren't serious.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Unidian
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm

Postby Shardrol » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:26 am

Unidian wrote:Why would I suggest that she wouldn't believe [QRS philosophy] to begin with except to keep David involved in her son's life? Well, because it's fiercely anti-feminine and most self-respecting women don't want anything to do with that, for what should be obvious reasons.

What does the word 'feminine' mean to you? I'm asking because there are several different definitions hereabouts.

And also because their children are of the utmost importance to most women.

Yes I think I've heard that somewhere, but are you sure that David wouldn't have stayed involved with his son anyway? It's a great opportunity to help a young person grow up in an atmosphere where ideas and philosophy are taken seriously.

As for why I don't suggest that David parrots Kevin or Kevin parrots Dan, that is because their individual styles are different enough to suggest to me that they are independent thinkers who simply happen to influence and agree with one another to a large extent.

I think Sue sounds quite different from David. No one would ever mistake their posts one for the other.

It's not just Sue. For an example closer to home, isn't it possible that you're being hostile to me because you happened to catch me on one of my (increasingly rare) bad days a while back in a chat room, where some ugly words were exchanged?

Hmm, I don't remember exchanging any ugly words, I recall being quite polite to you despite your temper tantrum.

I do find it ironic, though, that you view Sue as parroting rather than thinking independently, which is the same thing QRS say about women in general. I'm not being hostile, I'm just using my girly wiles to keep you relating to me, whatever it takes.
.
User avatar
Shardrol
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Postby Unidian » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:05 am

Yes I think I've heard that somewhere, but are you sure that David wouldn't have stayed involved with his son anyway? It's a great opportunity to help a young person grow up in an atmosphere where ideas and philosophy are taken seriously.


Yep, maybe so. I don't think it's relevant to an analysis of Sue.

And this is all just speculation, as I've stressed. I could be way off base with all of it, but I figure that's just a given.

Interesting how people always jump up to try to refute a psychoanalysis of someone else, though. Why is that?

What does the word 'feminine' mean to you? I'm asking because there are several different definitions hereabouts.


Having female qualities.

I do find it ironic, though, that you view Sue as parroting rather than thinking independently, which is the same thing QRS say about women in general.


She isn't the only one who does it, or even the most notable example. There are a few guys (as in males) here who are practically human tape recorders on permanent playback mode. Do you disagree?
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Unidian
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm

Postby Shardrol » Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:59 am

Unidian wrote:Interesting how people always jump up to try to refute a psychoanalysis of someone else, though. Why is that?

I guess I generally don't like people's psychoanalysis of others because it comes off as condescending & patronizing: appearing to 'understand' while actually belittling the person by reducing their behavior to manifestations of neuroses.

There are a few guys (as in males) here who are practically human tape recorders on permanent playback mode. Do you disagree?

I do. It makes me sad to see people who are sincerely wrestling with ideas & philosophy dismissed as human tape recorders because they have been inspired by QRS & are enthusiastic about their ideas. I don't think these ideas have been swallowed without thought.

You seem to be so profoundly offended by QRS that you cannot believe any rational person could read what they write & not be repelled. I disagree with their equating feminine with unconscious, but that doesn't mean I think they're wrong about everything.
.
User avatar
Shardrol
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:03 pm

Shardrol wrote:I guess I generally don't like people's psychoanalysis of others because it comes off as condescending & patronizing: appearing to 'understand' while actually belittling the person by reducing their behavior to manifestations of neuroses.


It is dehumanizing, but so is causality. Most people, even those with enough characteristics to warrant a diagnosis, are much more than their "symptoms" but the rest of who they are is still only a product of causality. In order to recognize how causality relates to human behavior, sometimes it is beneficial to take specific examples and point out what is a cause and its related effect.
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Postby Shardrol » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:55 pm

It would be even more beneficial to apply this to oneself.
User avatar
Shardrol
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Postby Unidian » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:49 pm

You seem to be so profoundly offended by QRS that you cannot believe any rational person could read what they write & not be repelled. I disagree with their equating feminine with unconscious, but that doesn't mean I think they're wrong about everything.


You're jumping to conclusions here, which is ironic.

I strongly disagree with the QRS position on "the feminine," and I disagree with their view that a rational understanding of reality leads to psychological salvation. I'm repelled by some of David's bizarre statements, such as the one about killing unenlightened old people, but that doesn't mean I think they are "wrong about everything," either. They are not.
I live in a tub.
User avatar
Unidian
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:00 pm

Postby Elizabeth Isabelle » Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:41 pm

Shardrol wrote:It would be even more beneficial to apply this to oneself.


Who said we do not? I have come to recognize that my PTSD is so bad, that primarily I don't just have the disorder, I am the disorder. I also have the effects of a female brain, too much testosterone for a female, and a high IQ, but all in all, I am a disorder. It is only insulting when someone tries to play psychologist and tries to give me an inaccurate label, but that is insulting because it lacks truth. It is dehumanizing to recognize that I am a disorder, but it is not insulting because it is true.
.
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Help Desk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest