"Currants Bw..."

[Niall_Quinn]

BS, I would never say anything about anyone's family, it was about something to.do with the nonsense you post and you didn't like it so you threatened violence

And if libertarians aren't pacifists, how does that equate with your claim about libertarians being against harming people or their property?

Gosh how easy it is to expose your complete jypocrisy

Libertarians aren't pacifists by definition, that's just a fact. Some might be by choice, but that's a choice and not a requirement.

No, if I ever did threaten you it certainly wouldn't have been for disagreeing with a post. There will have been far more to it than that. Until I actually engage in violence against you I haven't engaged in violence against you.

I said the fundamental principle of libertarianism is do no harm. That doesn't preclude the right to self-defence nor does it mean you have to turn the other cheek. Leave me alone and you are 100% safe. Invite yourself into my space with malicious intentions and I'll smash you. I'll never be the one initiating it though. What are you confused about? You think because I believe people should be left to their own lives I will meekly stand by while others trample over me?

Getting back to the original point, the cluster bombs, the only person exposed here is the one who took the message and tried to shoot the messenger. Obviously you have some chip on your shoulder from past discussions. If you aren't man enough to shake stuff like that off then cry somewhere else because it doesn't interest me.

[Mac76]

Getting back to the original point, the cluster bombs, the only person exposed here is the one who took the message and tried to shoot the messenger. Obviously you have some chip on your shoulder from past discussions. If you aren't man enough to shake stuff like that off then cry somewhere else because it doesn't interest me.

It's not about shooting the messenger, it's just trying to understand how you can see some things very correctly - the cluster bombs issue being a good example - and yet ignore all the evidence on others to take up a contrary position which seems to have more to do with trying to fit the world into your own ideological standpoint, rather than the other way around

[Ollie the Optimist]

Cluster bombs are clearly a horrific invention and should almost certainaly being outlawed however, its interesting taht NQ chooses to attack the US & Ukraine for selling/using them now them now but has not said a word about the Russians who have been happily using them in their war with Ukraine.

[Niall_Quinn]

It's not about shooting the messenger, it's just trying to understand how you can see some things very correctly - the cluster bombs issue being a good example - and yet ignore all the evidence on others to take up a contrary position which seems to have more to do with trying to fit the world into your own ideological standpoint, rather than the other way around

Yes, you were. Your entire argument turned to me rather than the subject matter, as does your latest post.

Which contrary positions are you talking about? The climate scam? Being mean to you on the internet?

[Niall_Quinn]

Cluster bombs are clearly a horrific invention and should almost certainaly being outlawed however, its interesting taht NQ chooses to attack the US & Ukraine for selling/using them now them now but has not said a word about the Russians who have been happily using them in their war with Ukraine.

It's not at all interesting and neither is it relevant. I don't have any control over what Russia does nor do I fund its government. Neither is the UK allied with Russia or in thrall to it, which cannot be said about the USA and its war criminal activities. Our association with these criminals is the issue. Why should I be highlighting crimes abroad when they are going on at home?

However, if we start collaborating with Russia to drop cluster bombs on people then I'll complain about that too.

[Mac76]

Yes, you were. Your entire argument turned to me rather than the subject matter, as does your latest post.

Which contrary positions are you talking about? The climate scam? Being mean to you on the internet?

it's not a scam, it's scientifically proven beyond doubt, however the consequences of having to deal with it - i.e. everyone taking collective action - just doesn't fit with your ideology, that's why you won't accept it - which is exactly my point about your ideology getting in the way

as for cluster boombs, what's there to say other than that you, Ollie and eveeyone else is right - they shouldn't be giving them to Ukraine because they're morally indefensible and also counterproductive - end of

[Niall_Quinn]

it's not a scam, it's scientifically proven beyond doubt, however the consequences of having to deal with it - i.e. everyone taking collective action - just doesn't fit with your ideology, that's why you won't accept it - which is exactly my point about your ideology getting in the way

as for cluster boombs, what's there to say other than that you, Ollie and eveeyone else is right - they shouldn't be giving them to Ukraine because they're morally indefensible and also counterproductive - end of

That's what you have been told. But you couldn't lay your hand on a single study or analysis that supports such a wild assertion. All you'd be able to do is post up links to summaries that are presented in the required context. It has nothing to do with ideology. It's about science and fraud. Anyone can educate themselves. You don't have to learn it all in a day. Pick a sub-topic and get reading. The claims of the alarmists are so unscientific and inflated you don't need to be a scientist to quickly see through it. Even the source materials used by these nutters utterly refutes their claims. It's hilarious. Apart from the bit where they want to kill potentially billions of people.

My point was the cluster bombs are just the latest data point in something you can prove beyond all reasonable doubt.

[Mac76]

That's what you have been told. But you couldn't lay your hand on a single study or analysis that supports such a wild assertion.

Really? Try this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...96511718300628

The evidence is everywhere - from collapsing permafrost in Russia to melting icebergs in the arctic to the fact that our own hottest weather records are being broken year-on-year - this June being the latest example

Your objection to it is purely based on your own objection that we have to act collectively and there is no sane choice - you just hate "being told what to do" - except when it comes to YouTube nutter - then you're perfectly happy to let them BS you

[Niall_Quinn]

Really? Try this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...96511718300628

The evidence is everywhere - from collapsing permafrost in Russia to melting icebergs in the arctic to the fact that our own hottest weather records are being broken year-on-year - this June being the latest example

Your objection to it is purely based on your own objection that we have to act collectively and there is no sane choice - you just hate "being told what to do" - except when it comes to YouTube nutter - then you're perfectly happy to let them BS you

That document is absolute nonsense. Sea level rises of 3.4mm per year? Pure bullshit. You can go to any US eastern seaboard harbour and look at the water level indicators and they haven't shifted in a century.

From your proof beyond doubt:

From 1979 to 2017, the extent of the Arctic sea ice decreased significantly, whereas that of the Antarctic sea ice generally showed an upward trend. However, the range of the Antarctic sea ice was abnormally small in 2017, with a minimum value in March and the second smallest value in September since the start of satellite observation records. In addition, the global sea level has been rising consecutively for six years. In 2016, the global average sea level reached a new height, approximately 82 mm higher than when satellite recording began in 1993. Over the past 20 years, the sea level has risen at an average rate of approximately 3.4 mm per year, with the highest increases being observed in the Western Pacific and Indian oceans.

Do you have any idea how nuts that is, how far it is from actual science? From 1979 to 2017? That's literally the blink of an eye and as far from a valid geological sample as it is possible to be. Start talking in tens of thousands of years and then you can spot trends. This is geology not politics. If we are still talking about science, that is.

You've been scammed sonny. The authors of that paper probably know what they are doing, but YOU don't know what they are doing.

Here. Bods like you have been walking about for around 315,000 years. Survived ice ages and meteor strikes and shit like that. With only sticks for spears and animal skins for underpants. Somehow they devolved into the sort of people who wrote that paper, but hey, nobody's perfect.



Okay?

Don't be having a go at me because you got scammed.

[Niall_Quinn]

I agree with the bits on pollution though. Which we won't be tackling any time soon because we're so busy pissing our pants about plant food.

What a coincidence that the real environmental issues won't be subject to net zero and the remedies all involve transferring money from the poor to the rich.

Couldn't possibly be a scam, could it. It's far, far more likely the world's about to end.

Jeez. How have they pulled this off. When did everyone get so stupid?