Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - garygreen

Pages: < Back  1 ... 72 73 [74] 75 76 ... 80  Next >
1461
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Jew anything.
« on: October 05, 2014, 03:37:36 AM »
the Quran, which I have read three times, but I suspect you have not read at all, tells them they must convert me, force me to pay the Jizyah tax, or kill me.

Have you ever actually been to an Arab nation and engaged its inhabitants in any civil discourse?  You're aware that not a single Arab state applies a Jizya tax, yes?

You're conflating both the official political rhetoric of nations like Iran, and the totally Medieval philosophy of ISIS, with the thoughts, feelings, and opinions, of the 'typical' Arab citizen.  It's completely bogus.  Arab citizens are as peaceful as any other.  They overwhelmingly have zero interest in converting anyone or killing anyone for any reason.

I've never read the Quran.  I dunno what it says; but, you've mentioned previously that there are writings/laws/whatever in the Torah to which modern Judaism no longer adheres.  Is it so difficult for you to believe that maybe some of the more Medieval aspects of the Quran are also no longer applicable or practiced in modern Islam? 

You clearly don't think it's fair for someone to label you as a barbarian because the Torah commands you to stone to death adulterers, homosexuals, and disobedient children.  Obviously.  Your faith doesn't practice those commandments anymore except in small pockets of extremists (which you actually defend, oddly enough).  The exact same thing is true for Islam.

1462
Those stories of people curing themselves of chronic illnesses and stage 4 cancers by sitting in radioactive mines is absolutely true. Many of the stories of people curing themselves by drinking "holy water" are also true. There is a spring in France and a fountain in Florida where thousands of people around the world flock to in hopes of curing themselves. People with bodies riddled with cancers can have their malignancy halted over a weekend. Followup tests on these water cures almost always show that the water is irradiated. These radioactive springs and wells were heavily promoted in early 1900's America and were very popular. Some of these people took in too much radiation and die of radiation poisoning, which caused the government to ban the therapy.

Things like Vitamin C, Colloidal Silver, Iodine are less harmful than radiation, and have communities around those substances to promote their effectiveness. It is my belief, however, that Vitamin C is the substance most natural to the body and therefore the least damaging. The body already uses Vitamin C to combat disease, and can better move it in concentration to the places it needs to be. The body can better handle the aftermath of an anti-oxidant coming through and wiping out diseases because it was built to handle that.

How do you know those stories to be absolutely true?  Because you read them on the internet?  Those stories could easily be fabrications.  Which sounds simpler to you: that springs with magical healing properties are being completely overlooked by virtually everyone on the planet because doctors are somehow hiding them (although not very well, apparently); or, that these stories were fabricated by an industry with the means, opportunity, and billion-dollar motive to do so?

The vitamin industry is owned and operated by proven frauds and liars: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/1999/2450.htm
Quote
A Swiss pharmaceutical giant, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd today agreed to plead guilty and pay a record $500 million criminal fine for leading a worldwide conspiracy to raise and fix prices and allocate market shares for certain vitamins sold in the United States and elsewhere, the Department of Justice announced. A German firm, BASF Aktiengesellschaft, also will plead guilty and pay a $225 million fine for its role in the same antitrust conspiracy, the Department said.
[...]
According to the charges, Hoffmann-La Roche and BASF agreed with the world's other major vitamin manufacturers to suppress and eliminate competition in the U.S. and elsewhere. The criminal cases charge that Hoffmann-La Roche, BASF, and Sommer, with unnamed co-conspirators:

Agreed to fix and raise prices on Vitamins A, B2, B5, C, E, Beta Carotene and vitamin premixes;
Agreed to allocate the volume of sales and market shares of such vitamins;
Agreed to divide contracts to supply vitamin premixes to customers in the U.S. by rigging the bids for those contracts; and,
Participated in meetings and conversations to monitor and enforce adherence to the agreed-upon prices and market shares.

Oh look, more vita-frauds admitting to price-fixing.  These people are proven liars and cannot be trusted: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324392804578360762865474642
Quote
On Thursday, after less than a day of deliberations, it found Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. and affiliated company North China Pharmaceutical Group Corp. liable for fixing prices on vitamin C for several years[...]The vitamin C makers generally didn't dispute that they acted together to set prices.

Wake up, vitamin shrill.  The vitamin C you're buying was industrially produced by Big Pharma.  You're buying it from proven frauds and liars: http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2003732744_vitamins03.html
Quote
If you pop a vitamin C tablet in your mouth, it's a good bet it came from China. Indeed, many of the world's vitamins are now made in China.

In less than a decade, China has captured 90 percent of the U.S. market for vitamin C, driving almost everyone else out of business.

Chinese pharmaceutical companies also have taken over much of the world market in the production of antibiotics, analgesics, enzymes and primary amino acids. According to an industry group, China makes 70 percent of the world's penicillin, 50 percent of its aspirin and 35 percent of its acetaminophen (often sold under the brand name Tylenol), as well as the bulk of vitamins A, B12, C and E.

Oh, you get your vitamin C from Europe?  Don't worry, DSM isn't a member of Big Pharma, and they have absolutely no connections to any of the liars and frauds in China: http://www.dsm.com/corporate/media/informationcenter-news/2014/07/27-14-dsm-to-acquire-aland-china.html
Quote
Royal DSM, the global Life Sciences and Materials Sciences company, announces today it has reached agreement to acquire Aland (HK) Holding Limited (“Aland”), a Hong Kong-based company producing vitamin C in mainland China[...]Acquiring Aland, one of the leading Vitamin C manufacturers in China, allows DSM to further strengthen its position in vitamin C. Aland increases DSM’s global footprint in vitamins for Human Nutrition & Health, Animal Nutrition & Health and Personal Care.

Big Pharma has two goals in the alternative medicine market: capture lost market share, and sell GMO corn (used for industrial vitamin C production).  They stand to gain the most by using vitamins to make you sick and get you back into traditional medicine.  That's why all of these vitamins are produced and sold by Big Pharma.  These are inescapable facts.

Means, opportunity, and multi-billion dollar motivation to deceive?  Check.
Proven track record of deception, lies, and fraud?  Check.
Proven material connections between all of these fraudulent actors? Check, check, and check.

1463
There is a conspiracy in the vitamin industry. I've learned a lot by reading some articles on the internet. I've come to the concision that 'naturalist healers' don't really know $h*#. They were taught by other naturalists with a twisted view of medicine designed to maximize profits. See, naturalists can get behind a substance like vitamin C because it's unpatentable, and they don't have to invest millions of dollars in research and development, not to mention FDA approval, to prove or support any of their claims about its ability to cure disease.

You see, naturalist healers have a huge financial incentive to keep you sick.  Traditional medicine already has a strangle hold on the health care market.  They control a multi-trillion dollar market.  The only way for the vitamin industry to gain any market share at all is to convince customers that traditional medicine is unsafe.  The most effective way to do this is to make your customers ill and convince them that only you posses the cure.  The vitamin industry is a multi-billion dollar industry in its own right, so it has every incentive to do this.  Even if they couldn't make you ill (and I'll demonstrate momentarily with an anecdote from a website that this is an indisputable fact), they still have a huge incentive to lie to you about the effectiveness of both their own products, and traditional medicine.  As you well know, Tom, if someone has a motivation to lie, then you must assume that he or she is lying.

The 'testimonals' you've been reading online are obviously written and planted by the vitamin industry itself.  It would be trivially easy to create hundreds and thousands of fake testimonials on dozens of different websites all established and run by the vitamin industry, and there's a massive financial incentive to do so.

If anything, evidence indicates that the vitamin industry may just be another arm of big pharma: customers dissatisfied with their traditional products can (unknowingly) purchase their 'alternative, natural' products.  Those customers will either get better and continue to purchase those products, or they'll stay the same/get worse and go back to traditional medicine.  This works especially well if the customer gets sicker; they'll come back to big pharma and spend even more money than they otherwise would have.  Thus, there is a massive financial incentive for the 'vitamin' industry (big pharma) to make you sick.

Some anecdotes that prove my hypothesis to be indisputable fact:

The vitamin industry isn't 'natural': http://blog.healthkismet.com/an-insider-reveals-the-darkest-secrets-of-the-supplement-industry
Quote
Nearly all supplements are synthetic. A few, like Vitamin E, are isolated from refined soybean oil. They are not natural in any way. The big con is that people think if they get supplements from a health food store, a drug store, a naturopath, or a chiropractor, that they are getting different products. The only real difference is the fillers. The vitamin c from the drug store is no different than the vitamin c from the naturopath. Both are synthesized using the Reichstein Process.
[...]
Unfortunately, there is no real way for the consumer to be able to figure this out, because companies will lie and give people the run around. The people and practitioners who sell supplements are also no help because they have no real knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes; they only know what the companies tell them.
[...]
Vitamin companies are not little mom and pop companies. It is a huge, multi-billion dollar industry. All the green washing and pretending they care is just about making money. So, do not fall for it.

The vitamin industry is in collusion with corporate farming to covertly sell more GMO corn: http://www.undergroundhealth.com/the-10-worst-toxins-hidden-in-vitamins-supplements-and-health-foods/
Quote
Here’s another whopper that’s sure to open some eyes: Nearly all the “vitamin C” sold in vitamins across America right now is derived from GMO corn.

This means that many of the supplements sold at Whole Foods, the vitamins sold on Amazon.com, the pills at your local pharmacy, and especially the products at the grocery store are (nearly) all routinely made with genetically modified vitamin C. It’s typically called “ascorbic acid,” and nearly 100% of the ascorbic acid used in the natural products industry is derived from GMOs.

Sourcing non-GMO vitamin C requires you to go outside the United States. There is no existing supply chain of certified organic, non-GMO ascorbic acid available anywhere in America (at least not to my knowledge). You can’t even run batches of non-GMO ascorbic acid production in the USA because all the facilities are contaminated with residues of GM corn.

The vitamin industry is using our own ignorance to keep us sick from birth: http://www.mommypotamus.com/what-the-vitamin-industry-does-not-want-you-to-know/
Quote
Unless your child has been tested extensively for nutritional deficiencies (one or two broad tests do not represent a true picture), you’re effectively supplementing in the dark. Throwing random doses of things into the mix is not a good idea, because if you give your child too much of something they don’t need their body will use precious stores of other vitamins/minerals to metabolise and get rid of it.

1464
Technology & Information / Re: Ask Rushy about Bitcoins.
« on: September 29, 2014, 12:02:40 AM »
Yes, it is possible to do mathematical calculations on paper. We're all very impressed.

This is an oddly antagonistic response.

1466
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Celebrity picture scandal
« on: September 09, 2014, 05:18:10 PM »
By Tom's logic, any victim of any crime is the cause of that crime by not stopping it.  There's always something one can do to better protect oneself from criminal activity.  "You could have prevented it by not doing x" is a stupid way to look at causality in this instance.  The cause of a crime is the person who commits the crime.

Leaving your phone on a crowded restaurant bar isn't anything at all like having private photos stolen from a computer.  Still, the person who leaves her phone on a table isn't the cause of the theft of her phone.  The cause of the theft of her phone is the person who took something that doesn't belong to her.  The fact that thieves invariably exist doesn't legitimate theft at all.

Frankly I think it's troubling that some believe that vulnerability actually legitimates immoral, unethical, or otherwise forceful behavior, rather than making it more despicable.

It's been said several times in this thread that y'all aren't saying that the thief did nothing wrong, just that the victim also bears responsibility for the theft by creating the stolen goods.  That's like blaming a painter for creating a work valuable enough to be stolen from her.  It makes no sense.  Obviously creating a valuable painting is not behavior that minimizes the risk of stolen paintings.  In the same way, creating a nude photo is not behavior that minimizes the risk of stolen nude photos.  That's just a truism.  And it doesn't have anything to do with fault or blame or causation.

1467
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: ISIS and the Middle East
« on: August 29, 2014, 12:53:16 AM »
Was rereading some Tolstoy.  This quote seems particularly apropos:

Quote from: The Kingdom of God is Within You
"But even it be so," say the champions of the existing order of things, "still the suppression of government violence can only be possible and desirable when all men have become Christians. So long as among people nominally Christians there are unchristian wicked men, who for the gratification of their own lusts are ready to do harm to others, the suppression of government authority, far from being a blessing to others, would only increase their miseries. The suppression of the governmental type of society is not only undesirable so long as there is only a minority of true Christians; it would not even be desirable if the whole of a nation were Christians, but among and around them were still unchristian men of other nations. For these unchristian men would rob, outrage, and kill the Christians with impunity and would make their lives miserable. All that would result would be that the bad would oppress and outrage the good with impunity. And therefore the authority of government must not be suppressed until all the wicked and rapacious people in the world are extinct. And since this will either never be, or at least cannot be for a long time to come, in spite of the efforts of individual Christians to be independent of government authority, it ought to be maintained in the interests of the majority. The champions of government assert that without it the wicked will oppress and outrage the good, and that the power of the government enables the good to resist the wicked."

But in this assertion the champions of the existing order of things take for granted the proposition they want to prove. When they say that except for the government the bad would oppress the good, they take it for granted that the good are those who at the present time are in possession of power, and the bad are those who are in subjection to it. But this is just what wants proving.

[...]

"If the power of government is suppressed the more wicked will oppress the less wicked," say the champions of state authority. But when the Egyptians conquered the Jews, the Romans conquered the Greeks, and the Barbarians conquered the Romans, is it possible that all the conquerors were always better than those they conquered? And the same with the transitions of power within a state from one personage to another: Has the power always passed from a worse person to a better one? When Louis XVI was removed and Robespierre came to power, and afterward Napoleon - who ruled then, a better man or a worse? And when were better men in power, when the Versaillist party or when the Commune was in power? When Charles I was ruler, or when Cromwell? And when Peter III was Czar, or when he was killed and Catherine was Czarina in one-half of Russia and Pougachef ruled the other? Which was bad then, and which was good? All men who happen to be in authority assert that their authority is necessary to keep the bad from oppressing the good, assuming that they themselves are the good par excellence, who protect other good people from the bad.

But ruling means using force, and using force means doing to him to whom force is used, what he does not like, and what he who uses the force would certainly not like done to himself. Consequently, ruling means doing to others what we would not want them to do to us, that is, doing wrong.

To submit means to prefer suffering to using force. And to prefer suffering to using force means to be good, or at least less wicked than those who do to others what they would not like themselves.

It's important to note that when Tolstoy here describes someone as Christian, he isn't talking about a spiritual affiliation, but a moral philosophy.  Replace every instance 'Christian' with 'nonviolent person' or 'good person' or 'person who doesn't harm others' and you've got his meaning.

1468
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Ask a Jew anything.
« on: August 28, 2014, 04:51:11 PM »
Read further for clarification. I'm not suggesting we DELIBERATELY bomb civilians. I am suggesting we take away ISIL's ability to make war. If that means knowing that some civilians are going to turn into dogmeat, so be it.

Why do you believe that we shouldn't deliberately bomb Arab civilians?

1469
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: ISIS and the Middle East
« on: August 24, 2014, 02:05:57 AM »
I'm not in favour of internment.  I just think Muslims need to be put back in their own part of the world, and not allowed to leave it.

What do you think internment is?

1470
Flat Earth Theory / Re: SpaceX commercial satellite launch
« on: August 23, 2014, 11:06:20 PM »
They aren't exactly filling me with confidence. I'm definitely not going to be first in the queue for a space ride.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28910812

SpaceX doesn't offer space rides.  It's not a space tourism company. 

If it did offer space rides, then it probably wouldn't offer them on test flights of new prototypes.  That would be a silly thing to do.

1471
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: ISIS and the Middle East
« on: August 22, 2014, 04:04:59 PM »
Fundamentally, you can't argue with me, because even if you were to successfully provide an argument against the above (which I don't think you can do, but feel free to try), I still have the Bible to go back to, that promises the Jewish People Eretz Israel as the Promised Land from God. You may reject that. You may reject belief in God. Feel free to do that. But there are enough Jews who believe in God and in that promise to keep fighting for the Land of Israel until Greater Israel belongs to us.

God should have studied harder in Contracts.  Doesn't he know about the Rule Against Perpetuities?

If that's the land God promised you, then God thinks you're as much of a cunt as the rest of us do.

1472
Flat Earth Community / Re: sun circles over a flat plane
« on: August 09, 2014, 12:03:38 AM »
Being as the ISS crosses the equator twice with every orbit, no sunset is a bit of a mystery.


It isn't a mystery at all.  RET predicts it.  Look at your image.  Now imagine that one of those orbits is aligned with the day/night terminator.  Mystery solved.

http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/4686/how-often-does-the-iss-orbit-align-with-the-day-night-terminator

1473
Flat Earth Community / Re: Dealing with Conspiracy Theories
« on: August 05, 2014, 02:59:42 PM »
I still don't understand how any of you have determined that the flag is moving from a single still image.

1474
Flat Earth Community / Re: Dealing with Conspiracy Theories
« on: August 04, 2014, 07:45:08 PM »
Sorry, I got confused. That picture is from Apollo 17 expedition. I was thinking Apollo 11, which would be incorrect. Still, that flag had been up there for a long time. It shouldn't be shown to wave in different pictures. It should be static, there is no wind on the Moon. Are you trying to say that the flag was moved by aliens?

How are you getting that it's waving from a single still image?  When I look at the other images of the flag from the same reel of photos on the NASA archives, the flag looks the same in every image I can see.

1475
Flat Earth Community / Re: Dealing with Conspiracy Theories
« on: August 04, 2014, 01:16:37 AM »


Why does the small thing on top of the camera, cast such a large shadow? Its is a though its very close to the studio light. But of course there aren't any studio lights on the moon. Certainly not powerful enough to illuminate an entire lunarscape. And its the only source of light. Otherwise that shadow would be lighter if a sun was shining on the ground to show the contours of the moon and the boot marks etc. I don't understand the light source here at all.

That's not a shadow.  It's one of the RCS thruster nozzles.



1476
Flat Earth Community / Re: Dealing with Conspiracy Theories
« on: July 22, 2014, 01:10:19 AM »
Except that when I zoom into the photo I can see soft foot prints in the dirt around the back of the rover, but no tire tracks leaving behind it. At no point in any of the Apollo recordings do they lift up the rover. The astronauts were only actually walking on the moon for a short time, and it is all well documented.

What you're suggesting is asinine regardless of the authenticity of the Apollo missions.  It would mean that NASA drove its rover through the dirt, stopped, and lifted the rover into place mere feet from its destination.  It doesn't make sense.  You can believe that the moon landings were fake and also believe that the fake astronauts drove their rover to that spot and then walked all around it pretending to do astronaut things, disturbing the rover tracks in the process.  It's much simpler and more logical.

The astronauts of Apollo 17 spent over 21 total hours on EVA.  There were several experiments around the LM that they checked and maintained each day at the end of the EVA.  There was plenty of time and opportunity to walk around the rover and LM.  Even if for some reason that seems unreasonable to you, it's still more reasonable than your suggestion, even if Apollo was a hoax.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_17/surface_opp/

e: Also, I forgot to mention that I circled in red a partial tread mark behind the rover. Bottom left corner. It's difficult to imagine how such a tread would be left if they lifted the rover into place.

1477
Flat Earth Community / Re: Dealing with Conspiracy Theories
« on: July 21, 2014, 03:33:48 PM »
The 'missing tracks' argument is absurd.  In every photo you can see other rover tracks around the location of the rover.  And, we know from video evidence that NASA built a mobile, functioning rover.  So apparently NASA built both a mobile and immobile rover, drove the mobile rover around, then lifted it up and removed it to set the immobile rover down at or around the original location of the mobile rover; or, they drove the mobile rover just a few feet from where they wanted to park it, got out, lifted the rover with a crane, and then set the rover down just a few feet from where it had been parked.

That completely defies logic.  It just doesn't make any sense.



Notice how the dark rover tracks merge with the darker soil where the astronauts have been walking all around the rover, as if the soil was disturbed by boots and rover tracks.  Notice that there are partial tread marks in the soil leading up to the rover, as if the soil was disturbed by boots.  Notice that you can clearly see a cable that has been partially buried (bottom-left, and center-right) in the soil, as if the soil was disturbed by boots.

1478
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Help Thork waste his money
« on: July 12, 2014, 07:33:50 PM »
I just don't like Blackberry as an option. They aren't trying to do anything new.

What?

Your statement is a good indication that you should just buy an equities index.  You're obviously not going to do any market research on the companies you want to buy (or don't want to buy), and I'm not sure how you could possibly make an informed decision that way, let alone get 10% ROI by blindly picking a company that you think sounds 'hot.'  That said, Blackberry would actually be a decent pick.

Blackberry is all but exiting the smart phone market under the direction of their new CEO, and it's returning its focus to what Blackberry has always done well: software.  They have a new CEO, a new direction for the company, no debt, and they're already profitable again after the collapse of their share of the smart phone market.  If you believe at all in the ability of this company to be profitable as a software company, then this is as good a time to buy as any with the stock price so low.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2310045-blackberry-back-in-the-black
Quote
BlackBerry is trading at a historically low price to earnings ratio, hovering at roughly 4.6. The company has found itself at an inflection point, one that will determine its fate. BlackBerry pulled itself out of severely negative profitability, picked up a new CEO, and found itself a new direction. It seems like a lot is hinged on John Chen, who seems competent and confident in his company's product line. I don't want to say BlackBerry is a buy, but if you believe in John Chen and his idea for BlackBerry inhabiting a security niche, then I would say that it's a good time to enter the stock.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2305605-these-blackberry-updates-look-promising
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2302335-blackberrys-current-asset-management-bodes-well-for-the-future

1479
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Help Thork waste his money
« on: July 11, 2014, 11:14:34 PM »
VTSMX

Very low fees.  It's the only security worth owning for someone in your position.  It's extremely unlikely that you are going to be better at pricing a security for an individual firm than the market will be, and you're even less likely to correctly predict what will be "hot" in the future.

1480
Arts & Entertainment / Re: FES Book Club
« on: July 11, 2014, 08:27:09 PM »
Current progress through my summer reading list.  Tolstoy's Kingdom of God has thus far been my favorite read.



Next up in the queue are:


Pages: < Back  1 ... 72 73 [74] 75 76 ... 80  Next >