Bye bye ambassador

We The People of the United States of America beg the world's pardon and apologize deeply for the erratic behavior of our nation. Our country is not himself right now and is very ill. He could use some quiet time in a padded room for a while. Sister America is wearing a pussy hat and trying to throttle her brother into health care.

@longtail4711 Why are you apologizing, we haven't even done anything yet.

'@MuricaFYeah' virtue signalling.

@comrade_Comrade Huh?

'@MuricaFYeah' literally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling

@MuricaFYeah Well you have started on that stupid wall. But you got a point, give the new new leaders a chance to prove themselves before apologising.

@Rogers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO8v1pGHWlA

@Rogers
Every one of his appointees so far are either totally unqualified for the department overseen, have a vested self-interest in preventing the department's function or both. The man is on record openly boasting about sexually assaulting women and the only defense his supporters give is 'Bill Clinton did too 20 years ago' which apparently makes it okay. He's pushing through bills for constructing oil pipelines that nobody except the oil barons wants and even the Army Corps of Engineers admit are a big mistake since processing Canadian bitumen into usable oil is even more expensive, energy inefficient and emission-causing than regular crude refinement.
He and half his cabinet are facing allegations of tax dodging and illegal failure to divest themselves from business interests.
His fixation on the size of the crowd at his inauguration, to the point of pressuring National Park Service employees to lie and coining the term "alternative facts" not only makes the US a laughing stock, but is evidence of dangerous egomania.
He's ordered what amounts to a media blackout by freezing official social media accounts tied to departments that disagree with him and forbidding them from speaking with the media.

This immigration freeze is bringing down lawsuits and stays from the ACLU and several district courts with probably more to come.

Face it, the man is an openly un-American fascist plutocrat of the sort not since since Garfield and Arthur.

@MuricaFYeah Surely you jest.

@Corgi Jest? Who say's that anymore?

@longtail4711 well it seems to be itself to me

@longtail4711 congrats, not only are you the first person to get more upvotes on the forum, but you also made it as most upvoted and 8th most downvoted! That is an achievement!

'@SpikeylovesSatW' that is an indicator.

@comrade_Comrade I was going off the voting data on the forums.

'@SpikeylovesSatW' not questioning the data, just pointing out that content of comment with most upvotes tells something about user base. At least it's part that bothers with up- and downvotes.

@longtail4711 - I think that's a brilliant idea, to have Sister America wearing a pussyhat from now on (at least part of the time. The Chihuahua should have a matching one.

Maybe they can come back to the States and teach us how to *Poof* the entire Trump administration.

When president orange won the election, Canada's immigration website crashed....twice.

@jubejube39 Sorry about that

'@jubejube39' you have border control? That's racist!

@jubejube39 not to mention the people of the maritimes explaining how to immigrant over.

@jubejube39 Ever wonder why all those celebrities who vowed to leave picked Canada instead of Mexico? (aside from not having to learn Spanish?) I haven't heard of many of them actually leaving yet though.

@Newnetherlander People say that every election, but nobody follows through.

@jubejube39 watch the PM have to build a wall XD

@jubejube39 i think you mean president Orange Corn

On behalf of the millions who didn't vote for Agent Orange, I apologise for the next few years of overwhelming asshattery that will be spewing from his government.

@katfairy It was either this or war with Russia.

@MightyPants
No, that was Putin whispering in your alt.fact ear to get free reins in Eastern Europe and the Baltics.
I'm waiting for a comic where Russia does a Bill Cosby on Estonia

@MightyPants
Despite Hilariant is a great *****, I really doubt that such a war would have happened, because of "MAD", USA interception missiles in E.Europe/USA can´t prevent.
On the other hand Trump is very unpredictable, and war with China in the china sea, is a good possibility.

@MightyPants War between two nuclear powers is not very likely with any president.

@MightyPants: What's telling you that idiot won't create another war? He's insulting half of the world. There is no way we will stand all of his insults for 4 years.

@Belgianfish No one is going to start a war purely out of spite. The president will change in 4 years, unless he surprises us, so don't worry. Just outlast Trump.

@lesserevil - Eh, I wouldn't be so sure. Europe has started plenty of wars out of spite. And Trump is basically a toddler with an army and WMDs. Never before have I literally been afraid for my life because of my own president.

@Mecharic True, but the threat of nuclear retaliation have been suprisingly effective for a while now. I'm more afraid that some poor nukeless country will get attacked instead. Maybe Hillary is a bit triggerhappy but you never know what the Orange Manchild will do.

'@Mecharic' looks like someone's been skipping civics class. Remind me, who has the power to declare wars under US Constitution?

@comrade_Comrade The president, however, has sole authority to order troops. And the Korean War was a "police action". I doubt he will, but there is a far greater chance of him causing a war than HRC ever had.

'@cotorshas' and war in Korea was fought by UN troops, not US exclusively. Same with Yugoslavia and Libya. Plus HRC already had part in starting the war in Syria.
Funniest thing about Trump is that at this point there is no sure way to tell if he's being impulsive or just pretends to be.

@comrade_Comrade , @cotorshas

While I don't think we can doubt the size of the man's ego, (How does that go? "It's yuuuge"?) the fact that he's managed to more or less successfully run and grow a multi-million dollar business would indicate that he's not all impulse and no constraint.

I really don't think Trump will start any large scale wars. They're bad for business.
He might get involved in a few proxy wars, however. Things like Korea. Vietnam. Afghanistan...
Syria...
You know. The things nuclear powers fight over when they don't dare pull out the really big guns.

'@SeanR' if he's really going to listen to general Mattis then I guess it's unlikely that there will be any additional attempts of "nation-building". That narrows options to clean-up raids in Iraq and maybe Syria.

@lesserevil : some wars have started for less than that. Sometimes, you just need a tiny little spark like a soccer match or a little murder...

@Belgianfish Well we had a good run.

Warning mini rant:
Oh boy... trump has only been president for a few days and liberals are already rioting, like for god's sake look at what he does for an extended amount of time.

Plus may i add: rioters call themselves anti- fascists, yet still want to censor concervative and right wing political voices and media outlets.
As Churchill predicted: the fascists of the future will call themselves anti fascists

@Tiny0Norway
You get an upvote, my good man,

@Tiny0Norway Oh, good grief. Disagreeing with something is NOT censoring it. If you're going to use the English language, at least understand what the words mean. While you're at it, you might also look up the definition of "fascism". I do not think it means what you think it means.

Finally, that Churchill quote is completely fake and has been debunked numerous times.

@3rdGeneration english is not my native tongue, forgive me.

If you've seen a Milo Yiannopoulos lecture or Ben Shapiro or whatever, you would see "anti fascists" trying to stop the lecture.

I actually looked up fascism and one of the fundamental steps of fascism is indeed to censor opposing opinions (Usually by the left).

And then we have the churchill quote, it might be fake, but it does not change the fact that these people who "stand against fascism" are actually partly fascists.

If you want an example of a fascist in the making, look at Recep Erdoğan of Turkey, he controls 95% of Turkey's press and media outlets

@Tiny0Norway Oh jeez, this just keeps getting better. BWAHAHAHA! You don't even realize that the two people you picked as your examples are completely discredited. Yeah, they're both Fascists. No, the people who disagree with them are NOT Fascists. Also, the Left and Fascism are completely opposed. And finally, LEARN THE MEANING OF THE WORD "CENSOR". It really doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.

Censorship is a powerful entity such as a government preventing people from saying what they want to say, or newspapers from publishing what they want to publish. Being jeered at or mocked or disagreed with for saying something is NOT censorship. Rather, it is the natural consequence of saying something that someone else thinks is ridiculous. Person A is free to say whatever stupid thing they want to say, and Person B is perfectly free to tell Person A that whatever they said was, in fact, stupid.

That isn't censorship. In fact, it's the opposite -- it's this neat thing called "freedom of speech".

Right now, I'm using my freedom of speech to point out how very, very wrong and misguided you are. Cool, huh?

'@3rdGeneration'

https://twitter.com/DymburtNews/status/825872298557132800/video/1

Apparently he was disagreed with.

@comrade_Comrade Non-Sequitur.

'@3rdGeneration' it is entirely relevant. He was disagreed hard in the face by one of the peaceful protesters that you can hear being tolerant at him in this video. Can you point name a single person knocked out by a yarmulke-wearing fascist Ben Shapiro?

@comrade_Comrade

Like 3rd Generation said, your post is completely irrelevant to the discussion - you're just trying to change the subject by adding an inflammatory video which proves nothing.
Only a very ignorant person would believe a video of one person laying on the floor is in any way relevant in a discussion about ideologies.

Because there are of course lot's of videos out there of people laying on floors for all kinds of reason.
For all we know from the video he might have fainted - people do you know.
Even IF - which is not proven by this video - the claim that the person laying on the floor had been knocked out at a protest at an airport is true it still has no relevance in this discussion.
Because there would still be no proof who did this or why.
You claim to know but you don't, so you lie.
And finally of course - even if your guess should turn out to be true and he was knocked out by "one of the peaceful protesters" it still says NOTHING in a discussion about ideologies.

There are plenty of videos out there of individual people behaving violently towards others (something this video doesn't even show, mind you) and all they show are individuals doing things - you can't use them to prove anything about ideology.
Sometimes someone calling himself liberal punches someone - sometimes someone calling himself a conservative punches someone - it still proves NOTHING about the ideology they claim to adhere to.

Just like your empty little nonsense about Ben Shapiro not knocking anyone out.
I can't name a single person personally knocked out by Adolf Hitler either but that sure as hell doesn't make him any less of a fascist or more of a nice guy - now does it?
So clearly, trying to prove anything about ideologies in general based on whether or not an individual person pledging allegiance to a certain ideology personally has ever physically assaulted anyone, is nonsense. So your post adds nothing of value to this discussion - your only trying to incite conflict.

There is no point arguing with obvious nonsense like that - I'll just note that I'm not surprised that a Russian is taking the side of the authoritarian far-right.
So be a good little troll and crawl back under the stone you came from and stop polluting western society with your Putin-propaganda aimed at undermining our societies now why don't you.

'@Nisse'_Hult next time try googling before typing another wall of text.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/01/pdx_protests_day_2_one_assaulted.html

Yep, he just felt tired and decided to lie down while all those nice people wished him good night.

@comrade_Comrade

As I wrote - it still doesn't matter one bit if you where able to prove your guess - it still says NOTHING about ideologies.
Now - back under the rock little troll.

'@Nisse'_Hult "or all we know from the video he might have fainted - people do you know."
"as I wrote - it still doesn't matter one bit if you where able to prove your guess "
Proves that you're full of it.

@comrade_Comrade

No, it proves you didn't read my comment - or didn't understand what your read or chose deliberately to missunderstand what you read - I don't really care which it is.
But other people reading our discussion will see that and know that your answer here is just more nonsense, troll-boy.

'@Nisse'_Hult yes, I understand that you didn't read the article, didn't watch the video and doubled down on your lie. Stopped reading right there.

@comrade_Comrade

No lie - my answer was completely stated in my first post. You just chose to not read it or deliberately missunderstand what I wrote but that's not my problem.
You're not convincing anyone else of you false version so suck it up troll-boy and crawl back under that rock.
I've issued a general warning about you as well so you might want to change you account or what ever the standard practise is when you're found out.

'@Nisse'_Hult "I've issued a general warning "
The horror, the horror!

"so you might want to change you account"
Vladimir Vladimirovich asked you to write a letter with explanation, he's interested in improving the operation and wants to know your reasoning.

@Tiny0Norway, Censorship it one of fascisms tendencies, tho however if you look at how the American President behaves, how he talk he links good amouth up to an authoritarian figure, by his policies he links up to an fascism figure.

Fascism or National Socialism, is an combination between Social program, privatization and autority, and hate ofc.

Lemme give you tons and tons of examples links between President Trump and Hitler's policies.

1. Attacking the diffrent branches of goverment.
(Hitler demanded a goverment For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general.)

2. Profiling diffrent races, strong border and demanding a wall.
(Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.)

3. America first.
(We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.)
(We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.)

4. Drain the swamp (We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.)

5. Muslim ban.
(We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race.)

6. Fake news.
(We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press.)

7. We are gonna open up libal laws, so when they write horrible thing, we can sue them.
Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published.

These was 6 of 25 programs NSDAP used.

If you want to check them out self https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

A fascist is a person that some people find very charismatic, has like an populist agenda in a time of crises or for some people sees as a crises, find a victim or more which can easily be blamed.

Rings any bells?

@Tiny0Norway As an online with said, to promote anti-Fascism, they dress all in black and smash stuff.

'@Rossum' and sometimes provide somewhat free entertainment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATHZi7moInk

@Tiny0Norway Behold, a rare example of the Trump supporter in it's natural habbitat: The comment section. This one is an especially common subspecies known as "butthurt idiot"

@ZanarNaryon i'm the butthurt one? BLM wanting dead cops in the name of anti racism is something to ignore and not be upset about?
I'm providing facts, you're calling names.

@Tiny0Norway If you're providing facts, then you also need sources to back them up. That's what makes them facts.

@heksesang the blm rally in Washington DC was shouting "we want dead cops" i saw it on NRK. You happy?

@Tiny0Norway

I'm not.
Provide a link to the video so I can see it with my own eyes to start with since your word means nothing.
Then prove to me that what some people shouted at one rally (if they did indeed do that as you claim) is representative of what the entire Black Lives Matter movement stands for.
Do that and you will have proven your point.
Until then you're just spouting your own opinions about things - opinions that means nothing.

@Nisse_Hult https://youtu.be/b-dr_IhQu-I there ya fucking go

@Tiny0Norway

Ok, that was the easy part since unless you flat out lied that did happen at at least one occation. My comment only forced you to actually prove it did - something you should have done from the beginning.
Now onto the next and much tougher point in my reply:

"Then prove to me that what some people shouted at one rally (if they did indeed do that as you claim) is representative of what the entire Black Lives Matter movement stands for.
Do that and you will have proven your point."

Your welcome back when you can do that.

@heksesang

@Tiny0Norway To be fair, at the same time Trump has done a lot to piss off the liberals in the first 10 days. I mean, the first 100 days in office are the most active after all and are the ones that the president will be judged on, so of course he's going to do a lot in 10 days, especially since his entire platform is "Oh, all the stuff that the administrations have been doing to the last 20 years is the exact wrong direction to move."

Not saying that I support the protests, but I understand why they're upset (they're also certainly not furthering anyone's cause by damaging property or threatening violence)

@Lord_Skata The vast majority of the protests have been peaceful and have not involved property damage. Protest is a time-honored and First Amendment protected way of speaking out. The American Revolution was touched off by one, and it even DID involve damage: The Boston Tea Party.

@Tiny0Norway I'm not sure how you think rioters would be capable of censoring right wing political voices or media outlets. In fact, the censorship you should be worried about is government research and information, which per executive order must now be approved by top white house officials in order to be released, keeping citizens in the dark. How about all the red states who've been caught gerrymandering this year? Does that not smack of fascism to you? How about Trump promptly firing the attorney general for standing up for constitutional law. (Yes- he was going to get rid of her eventually, but it's very troublesome that instead of caring about the law and the MAJORITY who agree with that law, Trump just looks for someone who will blindly do what he tells them. That's despotism.)

People can call it what they want, they can claim that salt is sour or that darkness is light but it does not change the Truth, it only makes one a liar and a deceiver. Matrimony is a holy union between one man and one women for the purpose of progeny, everything else is pretend. Just as when a man cuts of his dick and glues silicon lumps on his chest and pretends to be a female.
A man can become a eunuch, but gender is a biological imperative.

@rphb
Never thought I'd see a consertvative voice other than my own in these comments :P
Especially not from Scandinavia

'@NorwaySwedenDenmark' No, the welfare state have rotted away most of our sense, but our prosperity have been build on our rugged self sufficiency, formed from a harsh and unforgiving climate. What the welfare state does is that it makes us r-selective, like the people from the tropical regions, where food is plentiful and planning unnecessary.
I really admire the viking era, when we were so expansionist, so independent, so free. To be reduced to this... its shameful.

@rphb
Except we don't reproduce as much.
It's funny to see how much we've changed since the Viking age. For one thing, the Vikings were the that time second amendment people. Today we're completely happy with trusting our lives and liberties to the state and don't care much for regulations on our arms.

@NorwaySwedenDenmark
Ah. Reproduction.
Let me lay out my theory on that.
During the "Dark Ages", of as recently as the first half of the twentieth century, children earned their keep. Actively. Not just in the promise of a place for Grandma and Grandpa to sleep in their dotage. Children worked the farms, at one point even in factories. Having a child meant, in a few short years, more workers.
With education, and jobs that require a basic level of education greater than "follow along beside Dad, do as he does, and one day you'll do it all by yourself", children cease to be active earners. In fact, children are an active drain. They cost time. In places where the family is required to pay for "basic" pre-natal care, anywhere where children must be clothed and fed at the parents expense, and especially anywhere where any part of the cost of educating the child, (including not just tuition, which is probably pretty rare for parents of 1st world countries to be DIRECTLY saddled with, at least until age 18, but also school supplies, some of which can be quite expensive individually, like gym shoes, a computer, etc,) children cost a significant amount of money.
Throw in the idea that society, rather than ones children, can care for you in your old age, and having children ceases to be a natural, economic choice, and the only time someone's likely to choose to do so is if they truly love children, or the idea of family, or if they, heh, screw up. Pun quite intended.

There are people who go to great lengths to teach women in third world countries, because there is an inverse correlation between a woman's level of education and the number of children she's likely to bear in her lifetime. Naturally, correlation does not equal causation.
Jobs that kids just can't do, a culture that penalizes child labor, and high child-rearing expenses. These are the things that depress birthrates. Of course, educating the women does make the first possible. Generally available jobs that are too advanced to do by kids, or with kids underfoot.

'@NorwaySwedenDenmark' We have grown soft. Centuries of serfdom left the Peasant majority completely docile, and with the loss of our empire combined with the introduction of Absolutism even the nobility laid down their arms in favour of fancy castles and frilly dresses.
We brought the London Bridge down, our names was feared in Paris and Rome, and even America, 500 years before columbus.
Now we are just fat and lazy and waiting to be conquered, especially Sweden, they are the worst

@rphb But why would you want to be feared? I would rather my country be seen as a model success story that other countries strive to be like, not feared and despised. I understand wanting to be a force to be reckoned with, but certainly not feared and hated.

I'm just curious btw. I'm not trying to say that you're wrong or anything. Everyone has their own opinion.

'@lbisno1' Every prince will want to be considered merciful, but mercy should not be mismanaged. Cesare Borgia, by being cruel, restored peace and order to the Romagna. No prince should mind being called cruel for keeping his subjects peaceful and loyal. Punishing a few, and thus averting disorder, is better than allowing troubles to develop that will hurt many. New rulers cannot avoid seeming cruel, because their states are insecure. Still, a prince should not be too rash or too fearful.

If you cannot be both loved and feared, then it is better to be feared than loved. Men are generally fickle, afraid of danger, and greedy. When a prince benefits them, they will do anything for the prince, but when trouble comes, they will desert the prince. People will break ties of love if it is to their advantage, but fear of punishment they will never transgress. A prince must be careful not to make himself hated, even though he is feared; to do this, he must keep his hands off his subjects' property and their women. People will sooner forget the death of a father than the loss of an inheritance. However, when a prince commands an army, he must be cruel in order to control his troops.

In conclusion, people love at their own wish, but fear at the prince's will, so a wise ruler will rely on what he can best control.

Machiavelli, the prince chapter 17

@rphb
That is so Putin.
One can be independent without being aggressive towards others.
Learn from the finns or estonians. There has never been war between us.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
Finland independent since 1917
Estonia independent since 1992
Ye really haven't had time for a war

If we keep to the Scandinavian region we need to compare two countries that have been independent for more then a single century, like Sweden and Denmark

@rphb
Pre-1220 Estonia counties had raids on every neighbour, except on Finland.
My point still stands.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' They were a Danish colony at that time

@rphb
They were not. Danes had just one castle at Tallinn. And there was a countrywide rebellion soon after (not just against the Danes).

Anyway, if the year 1220 bothers you, take AD 1214.
The fact is, that there are no records whatsoever of finns and estonians warring between each other.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' That is because there are no records at all, the pre 1219 era, which was when the Danes Christianised Estonia, they were primitive savage pagans with no written language at all. The Danes eventually lost control to the Livornian order, which was an order of christian knights, that in return eventually got absorbed into the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth until Russia conquered it. Estonia have only existed as an independent country since 1992, and that is IF we can consider a EU vassal to be "independent".
No offence, Denmark lost our independence in 1940, and have never had a legitimate claim to sovereignty since. The difference is just that we have been sovereign.
And as with most things, this is a question of geography. Estonia is in a precarious position. Estonia is ripe for conquest from all direction from powers seeking to dominate the Baltic region, and without any form of natural protection it was unthinkable that an empire could start there. Had ye against all odds been able to gain dominance over a neighbour like Russia, ye would have ended like the Manchu that defeated the Ming in 1644, eventually lost your culture to these who started as your conquered subjects, as their culture were simply so much bigger. Something similar happened to Scotland, when their king James the VI in 1567 gained the throne of England.
Ye never had a chance.

@rphb
There are plenty of records.
There were multiple powers and each of them documented events such as raids. German crusaders documenting oeselian raids to Scania / Denmark, etc.
Central finns fighting with karelians, karelians fighting with northern finns, etc., etc.
The only missing ones are between estonians and finns.

[That is because there are no records at all, the pre 1219 era, which was when the Danes Christianised Estonia, they were primitive savage pagans with no written language at all.]

Spoken like a true uppity indo-european.
Estonians of that time were using both the runescript and the slavic/russian script.
Runescript was used for agriculture. But the use of written language was not widespread and it seems that contracts were not kept in written form, but were proven by third-party testifiers instead - an ancient oral blockchain.

[Estonia have only existed as an independent country since 1992, and that is IF we can consider a EU vassal to be "independent".]

Another ignorant opinion from an indo-european.
Estonians were no different from other peoples in the region. It is just that the Estonian equivalent of the german 100-county system stayed the same for 1200 years since around 0 AD. And instead of 100 counties, there were 5+2+1 major ones (depending on how to count) which used a division similar to the 10-fold division of the mongol army.

[Had ye against all odds been able to gain dominance over a neighbour like Russia, ye would have ended like the Manchu that defeated the Ming in 1644, eventually lost your culture to these who started as your conquered subjects, as their culture were simply so much bigger.]

We (finnics) already did that, twice.
At first in Sweden.
And then in Russia.
Both were failures ;-)

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' My point was basically that Estonia is in a precarious geographical position that will ensure that ye will always end up as a subject to some other power.

What I think would be most optimal, and that I find no excuse not to argue for is to form a Scandinavian federation. While the core, Denmark, Sweden and Norway is of course essential, there are many peripheral Nordic and semi-nordic countries that could also join this union, based on geographical, historical, cultural and demografical closeness.

Estonia would have more independence in this union then in the EU or the USSR as it is a more comparable size to the other members, but there is also the chance that ye could gain a fragile independence as a so called "buffer zone country"
That was the route that ye ought to have taken after getting out of the first oppressive union, but ye properly didn't realise at the time, that the European Union is just as bad as the Soviet Union was.

@rphb
Sure. Sounds like a good idea.
If the indo-europeans behave well, then finno-ugrians are all in.
The reason for the EU fast-track was that the Nordic Council member states were at the time moving towards directions that made achieving the common goal questionable (and we were not invited as full members). It is a balancing act, for sure. But all that 1% of annual immigration is piling up on state expenses and those "core" Nordic countries are slowly losing their ability to invest in defense (and the EU as well). Or at least it seems so. And even if the money were there and would be used for defense, the dehomogenized society would lessen the effectiveness of manpower. And eventually, in 30 years from now, those annual 1% tend to pile up and accumulate and compound. Estonia (the citizens, not sure about the Establishment) would be wary if Nordic Council full membership would be just an excuse to dump a lot of Scandinavian immigrants to the Baltics.

That getting rid of mandatory conscription (by Sweden) was pure madness in these corners of the world and it brought even Estonia (not the citizens, but the Establishment) to the brink of doing the same, because "look at the Nordics (don't look at Finland and Switzerland and Israel), the shining light in everything and sliced bread". And all that skimping on defense within NATO actually also manifests as economic competitive advantage. So one could say for example, that Germany has used unfair dumping by keeping their defense investments so low.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' yes these immigrants and their descendent are a huge problem that we need to deal with NOW. It have become unsafe for young Swedish women to enter the streets at night and the word "gang rape" have entered their vocabulary, and every day more and more young muslim men are invited in, all in the name of feminism.
Men build society, women destroys it. When a nation is conquered it is always the men that is killed, the women goes with the conquers. Swedish men have been feminised to appease women, and as a consequence no longer hold the interest of women. Women wants strong virile masculine men, that is why feminism so paradoxically allies itself with radical islam.

There are only two ways this can end, either Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia mans up, overthrows the matriarchy and the Muslim invaders, or it becomes a califate complete with Sharia law and stoning of infidels.
My recommendation is that Estonia should do its best to assert its independence for now, to balance the interest of the east and the west and as I said be a buffer state, and if the problems in Scandinavia is not solved, ye should ask to become a vassal of Russia, that at the very least is a christian country with strong moral values.
It would be better for Estonia to be part of a united Scandinavian block, but only if it remains ethnic Nordic and with a strong Christian tradition. In this time and age it is more important then ever to stand guard on faith, and not listen to the false shrill of post-modernism.

@rphb
[ There are only two ways this can end, either Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia mans up, overthrows the matriarchy ...]

I opine that matriarchy is not the problem, finnic peoples lived in matriarchy and it was fine.
I see the problem in the other side of Komintern (that which cooperates with big business) which was not eradicated in the West. The Western mainstream parties have been infiltrated by commies, basically. Commies who cooperate with big capitalists - which ironically was the theme with Lenin and his cronies as well, but they sidestepped to build up their own big business and carry on from there.

[ as I said be a buffer state, and if the problems in Scandinavia is not solved, ye should ask to become a vassal of Russia, that at the very least is a christian country with strong moral values. ]

Russia is not an option for the next decades.
In 50 years at best it might become one.
One of the problems is that Russia is slowly becoming muslim just as the West.
And there are even fewer borders within Russia than there are within the EU.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' Findland have never been a matriarchy. Before it was conquered by Sweden and Christianised it was ruled my a myriad of small tribes with a classical patriarchal structure.

Of course the fascist/satanic rule we have today is very problematic, but they would never have had any foothole if they hadn't been able to neuter the men and drive out Christendom ant its universalistic ethic.

Women and men both have their place in society, they are like the heart and the brain, both are pretty essential organs. The heart feels, the brain thinks. Women are emotional, men are rational.

And it is good to be emotional, in the home. But women are not warriors, they have never been warriors and they never will be. It is against her nature to fight for her tribe, it is against her biological imperative.
If the men in her tribe is too weak to defend it, she needs to go along to get along with the conquerors.
Its all about biology, what is the best strategy to ensuring ones progeny. For women it have always been to find the strongest man, for men it is to be the strongest.
A man that fights and wins will get a bride, if he fights and lose he'll die, but if he don't, if he is too much of a coward he might as well be a eunuch, no women wants to date a pussy.

@rphb
[ Findland have never been a matriarchy. Before it was conquered by Sweden and Christianised it was ruled my a myriad of small tribes with a classical patriarchal structure. ]

All baltic-finnics (including estonians and finns) had matrimony. It is ingrained into our common language and customs. By 1200 AD, it had become balanced or slightly tilted towards patrimony due to extensive indo-european influences. Basically, in a family the woman was the boss. One could even say that she still is the boss. And because our finnic societies never tilted too much to the patrimony, it also didn't need to correct as much towards the current feminazi stance. Or at least that is how I like to think of it.

[ Of course the fascist/satanic rule we have today is very problematic, but they would never have had any foothole if they hadn't been able to neuter the men and drive out Christendom ant its universalistic ethic. ]

Now here estonians and finns are again ambivalent, in that our society never fully embraced christianity, nativist-animist way of thought is still quite frequent here. Also, our favourite cursewords are Perkele and Kurat, both referring to a celestial object falling from the sky and plunging underground. So, I'd say that finnic people view the ethics part as somewhat more universal than christian values. And the universality is not as much that of human values, as that of partly stemming from the animist worldview (even though the animist and christian worldviews can be successfully integrated as well).

[ Women and men both have their place in society, they are like the heart and the brain, both are pretty essential organs. The heart feels, the brain thinks. Women are emotional, men are rational. ]

While that may be true, in finnic societies, women were leading family life while men were leading trade and defense matters, although there could be exceptions either way.

[ But women are not warriors, they have never been warriors and they never will be. It is against her nature to fight for her tribe, it is against her biological imperative. ]

I wouldn't be so categorical. Yes, ship crews were men.
But women could fight, although usually didn't.

[ If the men in her tribe is too weak to defend it, she needs to go along to get along with the conquerors. ]

Again, not always.
The Rus chronicles describe (a meme) where the chud women committed suicide instead of giving themselves up to conquerors.

[ Its all about biology, what is the best strategy to ensuring ones progeny. For women it have always been to find the strongest man, for men it is to be the strongest. ]

Not quite.
The strongest vikings in Greenland became christianised and died off or left. The women didn't become wives of inuits. There are other qualities besides strength to provide a long future for the offspring.

[ A man that fights and wins will get a bride, if he fights and lose he'll die, but if he don't, if he is too much of a coward he might as well be a eunuch, no women wants to date a pussy. ]

Too categorical.
For example, an estonian national epic contains a wisdom:
"Esimesed heidetakse, tagumised tapetakse, keskmised koju tulevad!"
(The first are thrown, the last are slayed, the ones in the middle come home.)
There are other wisdoms which praise military feats.

Also, estonian epic stories tell of women of supernatural strengths to carry stones.
So our folklore tells both about the Kal-Ev supermen and of Linda and Piret superwomen.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' Of course women are in charge at home, she is the heart, she is in charge of everything internal, the man is the brain, he is in charge of everything external.

[While that may be true, in finnic societies, women were leading family life while men were leading trade and defense matters, although there could be exceptions either way.]
This is exactly my point, men are the defenders. A traditional patriarchal society is not one where women are slaves, they just don't have a voice in public discourse, their place are at home, and that is where they reign.

And yes I am categorical, because we are talking about nature. There is always individuals that defy their nature, humans have free will, but nature determines the general traits.
And the norsemen in Greenland did not lose a war with the Eskimos, they lost to king Frost, the little iceage drove them of- The global temperatures needs to rise an additional 2 degrees before it is warm enough to resume the same agricultural tradition that they lived of there a thousand years ago.

@rphb
[This is exactly my point, men are the defenders. A traditional patriarchal society is not one where women are slaves, they just don't have a voice in public discourse, their place are at home, and that is where they reign.]

The women have had as much say as men.
Trade is a foreign policy. And military is only activated while under attack.

[And the norsemen in Greenland did not lose a war with the Eskimos, they lost to king Frost, the little iceage drove them of- The global temperatures needs to rise an additional 2 degrees before it is warm enough to resume the same agricultural tradition that they lived of there a thousand years ago. ]

Greenland is already warmer than it has been for the last 5000+ years at least.
The vikings wasted the topsoil, happens all the time with overeager civilisationist pyramid schemers, even happened to estonians about 4000 years back. The Greenland topsoil grows back, in about 5000 years or so.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' Okay I think we have gone really sidetracked, what does this have to do with the sin of homophilia?

@rphb
"progressivism"?
Google Obama administration's efforts on LGBT and AGW and I bet that LGBT comes ahead.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' progressivism is one of many incarnations of Satanism.
LGBT: Lesbian, Bisexuals, Gays, Transgender. Notice how there didn’t use to be a T in it, they added a new perversion to it, and more is coming, P for pedophile is on the way, and there are perversions beyond that that I don’t even dare name.
There is no end to the perversions ones we have started down that path.
Anthropogenic global warming, it’s a joke, it is anti-human and it is anti-God. And it is all fueled by Pride, which is not a good thing.


Metaphysically there are only two positions one can fundamentally hold: Faith in God, in the Absolute, and not.
The seventh sin, the final sin is pride. It is the most deadly of all the sins. As it is purely spiritual, it is capable of infinite harm.
The story in the Bible, and remember it is about morality first and foremost, of Lucifer.
Lucifer was the most powerful angle, his name means the light bringer, and he was more powerful and more great then all the other angels in heaven. He was so great that he himself felt that he was great, so great in fact that he didn’t need God, so he rebelled, and he was cast out.
But what many fail to realize from this story, is that it was not about Lucifer starting a war with God and losing, it was that the act itself lead to hell. By putting ourselves above nature, above God, we have nothing to hold on to, and as a consequence we are in hell where any idea of Good and Evil have been discarded and everything is an eternal power battle.

There is nothing to progress towards. What is Good does not change, it is eternal, it is Truth, it is Beauty it is God.
To abandon that, to “progress” as ye call it, beyond that which is perfect, is always a deterioration. Progressivism is always, by logical necessity, regressive. It leads to greater and greater perversions until civilization itself is destroyed.
The root of the word civilization, is civility, and in order to be civil, one needs to be moral, and rational, and both requires a faith in God.

@rphb
[LGBT: Lesbian, Bisexuals, Gays, Transgender. Notice how there didn’t use to be a T in it, they added a new perversion to it, and more is coming, P for pedophile is on the way, and there are perversions beyond that that I don’t even dare name.
There is no end to the perversions ones we have started down that path.
Anthropogenic global warming, it’s a joke, it is anti-human and it is anti-God. And it is all fueled by Pride, which is not a good thing. ]

I was merely pointing our that the Obama administration (together with its ambassadors) and the mainstream media put more emphasis on LGBT than on AGW. And the mainstream media continues on that trend even now.

AGW is real, get used to it if you can (the science on evolution says that growing gills takes time and even then the excess CO2 levels make fish swim towards their prey.)

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' Science is never settled. In Science, dissenting voices is usually right, especially when the mainstream position is supported by money, and power.

I haven't really made up my mind on evolution, there are lots of things about it that are, lets say questionable. I am not saying that I am a creationist, I am just saying that looking at interspecies relations with evolution is like looking at galactic distances with Newtonian physics.

One have to be sceptical, it is not good to simply believe what the authorities tell us.
AGW however is pure pseudo-science, its only purpose is to serve as a justification for ever increased political intrusion in our lives.
One of the fun little fact that is so often lied about is about Carbon dioxide. CO2 is good for the world, it means more life. More CO2 means more life, and CO2 does not cause global warming. The Arctic icedrilling proves it. CO2 is a lagging indicator. First the global temperatures goes up, then CO2 rises, and wise versa.
Another fun fact is that the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases decreases the more of it is in the atmosphere. The atmosphere gets saturated, these models that they make pretends that it is the other way around, that the effect instead accelerates exponentially.
They also ignores the homeostatic nature of Earth.
I am not claiming that Earth is concious, but she is alive, and have been for a billion years, and that is just not possible without homoeostatic systems that always brings it back into balance.
Also don't forget, the greatest effect on the Earth climate is the sun, and it is a lot bigger then us humans.

@rphb
[In Science, dissenting voices is usually right, especially when the mainstream position is supported by money, and power.
...
AGW however is pure pseudo-science, its only purpose is to serve as a justification for ever increased political intrusion in our lives.]

OK, now I am starting to get worried (about you).
Did you know that almost any time series data are analysed by the AlGorithms of the same person who originally discovered the greenhouse effect of CO2? His name was Fourier. The same AlGorithms are also used on stock price analyses. But the thing is that the CO2 greenhouse effect is proven physics, not interpolation with infinite number of sinusoids or polynomials.

[CO2 is good for the world, it means more life. More CO2 means more life, and CO2 does not cause global warming.]

You are mistaken.
Excess amounts of CO2 hampers decision making capabilities of humans and fish (thus likely all vertebrates).
More CO2 means global warming. Holocene climate was exactly in the middle of Snowball Earth and Runaway Warming Earth. Any change to either direction brings about more instability which the human civilisation has never experienced before. The holocene climate varied within 1C. Our agriculture is optimised to that variation. The whole ecosystem of our civilisation has been acculturalised to that variation of climate.
More CO2 means the largest mass extinction event ever and it is approaching at least 10x as fast as any of the prior ones. The speed of change is so fast that no mammals nor reptiles nor fish have experienced it during the last 300 million years.

"The Arctic icedrilling proves it. CO2 is a lagging indicator."
You are mistaken again.
CO2 is a feedback, thus it both drives and feeds from it.

"Another fun fact is that the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases decreases the more of it is in the atmosphere."

Yes, but I fail to see the fun of it, unless you like planet Venus.
And did you notice that your claims on "CO2 not causing global warming" and on "the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases decreases the more of it is in the atmosphere" are mutually exclusive? OR are you now claiming that CO2 increase would cause global cooling? That would be a novel and courageous claim, for sure.

"The atmosphere gets saturated, these models that they make pretends that it is the other way around, that the effect instead accelerates exponentially."

You are misled or you are misleading.
The climate models model CO2 effects correctly.
The runaway is not due to saturation of CO2, it is due to crossing the threshold of pumping water vapor into stratosphere which causes additional greenhouse effect.

"They also ignores the homeostatic nature of Earth."
The what? Planetary self-regulation is possible only within the Goldilocks zone and the climate sensitivity is lowest in the middle of the Holocene climate. Veer to any side and climate sensitivity will rise, and once past the threshold (once the hydrogen from the oceans have precipitated into space by pumping water vapor into stratosphere) the next stop is Venus.

"Also don't forget, the greatest effect on the Earth climate is the sun, and it is a lot bigger then us humans."

Climate scientists never forget the sun. Solar variation has been taken into account.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' I am not claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gass, I said that an increase of the CO2 levels have always come after the temperature have already risen.
The greenhouse effect is meant to prevent the warmth from escaping out into space, its a good thing, it is part of what preserves life on Earth. But there is an upper limit to how effective greenhouse gases are. It is fun that the effect of greenhouses gases decreases with quantity as it makes the effect of increasing their levels in the atmosphere less and less significant. And it is not an excess of CO2 that makes mammals more sluggish it is a lack of O2. Put many people together in a closed room and they will use up most of the oxygen, that is also why lots of plants improve the work environment.

I understand that thou art scared, that is the whole point. It have always been the point of dictators to rule though fear.
The Earth is never going to look like Venus, not for 800 million years at least, at that point the sun start to go into its red giant stage and our time will be up, but that is another story.
Venus is as Venus is because it is too close to the sun and because it never had a moon to stabilize its orbit.
Humans are incapable of destroying all life on Earth, if we fired every nuke on the planet at once, we might be able to kill ourselves and other large mammals on the planet, I say might because that theory is dependent on the nuclear winter Hypothesis being true, (but I don't want to test it).

The purpose of the global warming hoax is to scare people into surrendering our fundamental liberties, and national sovereignties to a global body of regulators. It is the dream of the Satanist to create a New World Order, order out of chaos, a one world government and a single false one world religion.
I am not saying that it is going to happen, I am saying that we must do what we can to prevent it from happening, and supporting all politicians that fight for nationalism and against globalism. Men like Donald Trump, Gert Wilders and Marie Le Pen.
The siren song of the globalist seem appealing, but only until we deconstruct it, then everyone ought to be able to see the lie for what it is.

The first thing thou will notice is that it is very anti-human. It demands sacrifices for “the greater good”. The Greater Good is one of these key words that thou need to discern. It is a collectivist term. It is about the good of the greater number, the good of the group, over the good of the individual.
But that is an abstraction, groups don’t have independent existence, they all consist of individuals.
And the second thing that we should notice about the term is that it relativizes the good.
The alternative position, the pious position, that there are certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and property, is that good is something fixed, it is Absolute.
The collective is not important, the rights of the individuals are important, and when these rights are respected it benefits everyone.
If we allow our fundamental rights to be taken “for the greater good”, what are we left with? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, we have become nothing but cogs is a machinery, that cares nothing at all about us, or anyone. The greater good is a lie. What is good is Good and what is evil is Evil, it doesn’t changes and it is not relative.

I am not saying that sacrifices are bad, but they are personal, never imposed. A true sacrifice is in opposition to tyranny, it is when we realize that there is something more important, then our own life. Once we realizes this, the tyrant loses all power over us. If he strikes us down at that point we become a martyr.

Fear not.

@rphb
[n I am not claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gass, I said that an increase of the CO2 levels have always come after the temperature have already risen. ]

You are mistaken.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

[ But there is an upper limit to how effective greenhouse gases are. ]
There is no upper limit.
Or rather, the upper limit is the supernova and the creation of a neutron star or a black hole.

[ And it is not an excess of CO2 that makes mammals more sluggish it is a lack of O2. ]
You are mistaken.
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/15-10037/

[ Put many people together in a closed room and they will use up most of the oxygen, that is also why lots of plants improve the work environment. ]
Do you even think what you are saying?
If oxygen usually takes up about 30% of the air, then if the CO2 level rises from 400ppm to 1400ppm, it would decrease the oxygen level down to 29,9%.
Organisms have adapted to their environment. Humans as a species have never experienced sustained CO2 levels above 400ppm over several generations. However, people living in high altitudes have adapted to air densities 50% of the sea level density. So high-altitude people get by with 50% less oxygen.

[ The Earth is never going to look like Venus, not for 800 million years at least, at that point the sun start to go into its red giant stage and our time will be up, but that is another story. ]

Climate scientist James Hansen and his team have investigated and estimated that if all known fossil fuel reserves will be burned, then we will cross the average 30C threshold globally which right now only operates on the equator during El Ninos. That water vapour pump, once fully started, would be very difficult to shut down. The pump is already operating at minimal power. It cranked up a bit last year, the year 2016. Once the pump is fully on, it won't take 800 million years.

[ The purpose of the global warming hoax is to scare people into surrendering our fundamental liberties, and national sovereignties to a global body of regulators. ]

Any such global social contract would also require national acceptance by the large majority of citizens of the country. Or the contract would fail eventually. What the elite does not want to fully realise (and you as well), is that such responsibility can only be achieved through long-lasting nativity, not by large-scale migrations. Large-scale migrations destroy any hope of a stable social contract. Thus the migration flows have to be stemmed considerably from current levels and within large countries as well. To put it bluntly, romas are an example of how a social contract would fail.

[ It is the dream of the Satanist to create a New World Order, order out of chaos, a one world government and a single false one world religion. ]

A global social contract does not require single religion. In fact, I'd say the opposite - any global pressure on adopting global "human values" aside from those arising from game theory would destroy the contract.

[ I am not saying that it is going to happen, I am saying that we must do what we can to prevent it from happening, and supporting all politicians that fight for nationalism and against globalism. Men like Donald Trump, Gert Wilders and Marie Le Pen. ]

That remains to be seen.
If those men and women support the aggressions of Russia, then it would be a failure.
And if they support externalising external costs of fossil fuels and nuclear industry, then that would also be a failure.

[ The first thing thou will notice is that it is very anti-human. It demands sacrifices for “the greater good”. ]

The value of a sacrifice depends on the goals and on the attainability of the goals.
Sacrifice is only worthwhile if it helps to achieve the goals. The goals of all, not the goals of few.

[ It is about the good of the greater number, the good of the group, over the good of the individual. ]

Social norms and customs are about the greater good of the society over the greater good of an individual. An individual might take a dump on his neighbours well and he would feel relieved.

[ But that is an abstraction, groups don’t have independent existence, they all consist of individuals. ]

Actually it is the other way around - individuals do not exist outside of the society. Thus the society has to come first, the individual comes second. But the social norms are created by the individuals who are the society.

[ The alternative position, the pious position, that there are certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and property, is that good is something fixed, it is Absolute. ]

That is not absolute.
The general physical laws of our universe dictate that if there is a universal right to live, then there is no universal right to multiply, and if there is a universal right to multiply then there is no universal right to live.

Land belongs to the society. An individual is basically renting it for a fee and has the right to pass the renting rights on. The only universal right of a living being is to have goals and to make choices and to form societies and within societies to participate in the democratic process of decisionmaking. This applies both to men as well as to fish.

[ The collective is not important, the rights of the individuals are important, and when these rights are respected it benefits everyone. ]
Tragedy of the Commons proves otherwise.
The collective is more important than the individual, but the collective only truly exists as the result of the direct democracy of the individuals who make up that collective.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' I don’t think there is any point discussing the science with thee. The two camps both have their arguments and their data, and neither side can be clearly ruled out. That is the major problem with this conflict, the ambiguity.
I will only end by saying that the final lie from the climate hoax is that they equate “climate change” (notice that this have replaced global warming) with pollution. And it is not the same thing.

It is much more simple to look at the political consequences.
Thou mentioned another thing that I find very important. Namely the goal. Thou said that the goal is all that matters. I disagree, we need to look at the means. I don’t think there is such a thing as an ignoble goal, at least not in the eyes of these who have them. We cannot want evil. We all want Good, the problem comes from people not having a clear understanding of what Good is.
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20
That is the problem. Remember that Good, Truth and Beauty is a trinity, and as a consequence so is their opposite Evil Hideous Lies.

What we should concentrate on is the means. As I said, there are things that are inherently Good and there are things that are inherently evil, and the consequences of actions are not relevant.
Consequentialist always decays to a “the goal justifies the means” mentality, they never look at the inherent moral value of an action, but only on its consequence. Consequences that can never truly be calculated in the complex world we live in.
The principle of human laws, are the Natural Law of fundamental rights, and of malum in se.
I don’t get what thou mean by thy rejection of the right to live and the right to multiply. If thou by “multiply” means procreate, then it is the same thing.
And tragedy of the commons, comes from the lack of property. I don’t deplete land that I own, no one does, unless they are idiots, but then they would lose their land to someone else anyway, it is self correcting.
And so is the climate, if the global temperatures were to rise above a certain threshold, we would get a new iceage. The gulf stream that gives life to all of Northen Europe could be turned away. Nature always corrects, one way or another, as I said, Earth is a living organism, it have a metabolism, and it is in homeostasis.

But enough of that ,seriously, and I have to go in a moment, so I have to make the last point short.
Malum in se means evil in itself. It is the basis of law. Robbery, Theft, Swindle, Murder, Rape, Adultery these are all malum in se.
Copyright infringement is not, it is an abstraction, and unlike traffic laws, that can be justified as a malum prohibitum, evil due to conventions, it harms no one.
But the point is, we need to look at the actions themselves. Of what they are inherently and on their own. We cannot just look at the consequences, because that leads to an infinite regress, it ultimately takes us nowhere.

@rphb
[ The two camps both have their arguments and their data, and neither side can be clearly ruled out. That is the major problem with this conflict, the ambiguity. ]

No, there is no ambiguity. There is climate science and there are deniers who do not practice climate science. The intermediate group would be the sceptics and the Berkeley Group was one such example but that group of sceptics came to the conclusion that the climate science was right (except for Judith Curry, who clinged to "alternative facts").

[I don’t get what thou mean by thy rejection of the right to live and the right to multiply.]
It boils down to the limits of a bacteria population in a Petri Dish.
And if the population somehow gets too large, it drowns in its own gravity well.

[And so is the climate, if the global temperatures were to rise above a certain threshold, we would get a new iceage.]

What??? No!
The Younger Dryas was NOT an ice age. It was a temporary interruption of sudden warming on the northern latitudes. The glaciers did not grow back. But the rest of the planet continued warming. And the temporality of it obviously depends on the particular set of forcings and feedbacks. And the onset of such temporary interruptions does not begin from a threshold absolute temperature, it depends on the speed of change (thus on derivatives and integrals).

[ But the point is, we need to look at the actions themselves. Of what they are inherently and on their own. We cannot just look at the consequences, because that leads to an infinite regress, it ultimately takes us nowhere. ]

Actions are part of the consequences.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' The science is not settled, the science is never settled, it is about seeking truth, and always remaining sceptical, not preaching it.
I am not a scientist by profession, I am a philosopher and an economist, but ultimately it is irrelevant, because we can accept everything the climate change proponents claim, and still reject their conclusions.
Because the underlying problem in their premise, is a miscalculation of resources. And the primary cause of that is the present global fiat ponzi and pyramid scheme of the central bankers.

Thy arguments boils down to that thou hast heard some doomsayers preach about a fiery hell that awaits us, and to prevent this potential future, we have to sacrifise everything that makes life worth living.
Our right to self determination, our body, our mind and our spirit. Thou mentioned the younger dryas, an event that took place 12000 years ago, I guess that was mans fault too.
I am not denying that the climate is changing, it is always changing, one way or another. The global temperatures have been many degrees warmer then it is now, and many degrees colder.

I am not concerned about nature, nature always finds a way. I told thee pride is the worst of all sins. We don't know everything, and we don't control everything. We have to accept, that which we cannot control.

This is really an argument about ethics.
Actions are indeed a part of a consequence, but the consequences are not a part of the action. They come after. If we accept the premise of free will, which is necessary to pass moral judgments. This means that we don’t have to look at what lead up to our actions, we only have to look at our actions themselves. And deem if they are Good or Evil.
When the action itself becomes the focus, the means is what ultimately matters, and not the goal. What is more important, loosing with honour or winning by cheating?
I read a good quote once: in any battle between a relativist and an Absolutist, the Absolutist wins, because he alone is willing to die for his principles.
We need less government, especially less global government and less intrusion, not more. Nature always self correct. As thou so well said
[It boils down to the limits of a bacteria population in a Petri Dish. And if the population somehow gets too large, it drowns in its own gravity well.]
, exponential growth is impossible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk This is a very interesting lecture by professor Al Bartlett
I loved his bottle example. If a bacteria population that lives in a bottle, and doubles in size every minute. And it starts at 11 and it is full at 12, at what time is the bottle half full?
Answer, one minute to midnight. And if they should somehow be able to quadruple their living space with 3 extra bottles, how much more time will they have. Answer 2 minutes. At 12 the first bottle is full, at 12:01 the second bottle is full, and at 12:02 all four bottles are full.
Exponential growth is impossible. But that is exactly what Keynesian economy demands.
They talk about 2% growth, and 2% inflation, but what does that mean? It means that they expect the size of the economy to double every 35 years.
They need to keep the economy growing like that, in order to keep their scam going.
I remember a time, not so long ago, when they tried to use that argument, to scare people about an imminent threat of overpopulation.
Then, after having successfully scared people into not having that many children, they suddenly say that we have too few young people to take care of our old. So we have to import them from the third world. Overpopulation is never a problem; it never grows faster than the resources that are available to sustain it. But they want us to be scared, and look to them for solutions.

Its not complicated, there are right and wrong, Good and Evil, sins and virtues and certain inalienable rights. The world is not complicated, but they want us to be confused. So we don’t know what’s what.

@rphb
[ we can accept everything the climate change proponents claim, and still reject their conclusions. ]

Well, no.
Climate science says that the human induced mass extinction event is many times faster than any mass extinction event before that. And geology says that largest mass extinctions wiped out 90% of families of species. That is not 90% of individuals. That is not even 90% of species. That is 90% of families of species.
But if the planet goes venusian, then we can write off all the vertebrates.

[Because the underlying problem in their premise, is a miscalculation of resources.]
Their? Climate scientists? Their premise is correct.
The only question is for how long BAU (business as usual) continues or not.

[And the primary cause of that is the present global fiat ponzi and pyramid scheme of the central bankers.]
Peak resources principle is also correct, but unfortunately it does not take into account market distortions via fossil fuel subsidies, which enables to delay the onset of slowdown.

[...and to prevent this potential future, we have to sacrifise everything that makes life worth living.]
BS. Breathing in fuel exhaust every day is not something I'd call "makes life worth living".

[Thou mentioned the younger dryas, an event that took place 12000 years ago, I guess that was mans fault too.]
Heinrich events happen during flips from an ice age to an interstadial. Ice ages happened due to Milankovich cycles amplified by feedbacks (including greenhouse gases and albedo). Supervolcano eruptions also happen.

[I am not denying that the climate is changing, it is always changing, one way or another.]
Our climate just left the variability of Holocene climate of the last 10 000 years. CO2 in the air has left the Quaternary period variability and is soon leaving Miocene. We are not in Kansas any more.

[The global temperatures have been many degrees warmer then it is now, ...]
Without fossil CO2 and without contemporary sun.

[We have to accept, that which we cannot control.]
We failed to do that for the last 10 000 years.

[I read a good quote once: in any battle between a relativist and an Absolutist, the Absolutist wins, because he alone is willing to die for his principles.]

Wanna bet?
Relativists are very competitive. Just look at all the Darwin Award nominees - they were not after absolutism, they went all the way for the relative win.

[We need less government, especially less global government and less intrusion, not more.]
We need more strict environmental regulations and enforcements. And stop treating companies as bättre citizens. Corporations are not citizens.

[They need to keep the economy growing like that, in order to keep their scam going.]
Yes. So?

[I remember a time, not so long ago, when they tried to use that argument, to scare people about an imminent threat of overpopulation.]

That threat is imminent. You likely misunderstood the urgency of it and the timescales of population dynamics.

[Then, after having successfully scared people into not having that many children, they suddenly say that we have too few young people to take care of our old. So we have to import them from the third world.]

Those are not the same people.
The Club of Rome were not Soros.

[Overpopulation is never a problem]
Overpopulation is always a problem.

[it never grows faster than the resources that are available to sustain it.]
There are renewable resources and there are nonrenewable resources.
You are practicing demagoguery here.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
I am not practicing demagoguery, doth thou even know what that means? I am not trying to persuade the masses to follow me using pathos. I am quite the contrary trying to use logos, and to a lesser extent ethos to convince thee.
I know thou hast that picture of Venus in thy head, I know thou art scared, but try to look beyond the emotions of that. I am saying that even if we were to accept the premise of that, as ludicrous as it may be, a better solution then extensive global regulation would be to simply end central banking and fiat currency. Because without that we wouldn’t waste resources as we do now.

Things like overpopulation is not a problem because it is self-corrective. If there is more individual of a species in a region of a species then it is able to support, they start to fight each other for the scares resources and the weak ones die.
And yes there are things that are limited in supply and oil might very well be one of them, but we won’t keep using oil until there is no more oil at all, only until it is no longer economically feasible. Price solves everything, when it becomes more expensive than the best alternative, we will use the alternative.

I agree that subsidies are bad, I don’t like subsidies, I am a minarchist, I want the minimal state, the only legitimate functions of the state is to enforce legal contracts and protect us from violence.

[We need more strict environmental regulations and enforcements. And stop treating companies as bättre citizens. Corporations are not citizens.]
I agree, corporations are not citizens, and don’t have rights. I don’t like corporations at all, they have gotten a life of its own, they have gotten a life of their own that is very parasitic to humans and literally soulless. There are ways to structure businesses without them being incorporated.
Beyond the personally owned buisnesses and the partnerships, we have more advanced structures like the Kommanditgesellschaft where there are both active partners that are personally liable for the business and silent partners that are only liable for what they put in, and are entitled to a share of the profit.
And regarding environmental regulation, there should be rules against pollution, because pollution damages others property, but it is the sovereign right of each nation-state to determine the details.


[Relativists are very competitive. Just look at all the Darwin Award nominees - they were not after absolutism, they went all the way for the relative win.]
I don’t even know what that means, relativist have no values. Straight comes from convictions that one is not willing to compromise. There is nothing a relativist won’t do for the right price. An Absolutist does not have a price, he cannot be bought.
Absolutist don’t have to be Good, a Muslim terrorist is Absolutely evil, but a relativist aren’t even able to comprehend him. A relativist thinks that Muslims can just be integrated into western societies, as a hedonist, he thinks that everyone is a hedonist.
He cannot comprehend that there are people that don’t simply seek pleasure, that there are people motivated by a higher calling.
For that reason ye are always surprised, and always making excuses.
Yes I use the word hedonist now, it is the same thing. Thou indicated that thou prescribe to utilitarianism, that is the happiness is the only end goal, and that everything should be measured in its most optimal maximization.
That all fits together with hedonism and relativism , but not all people are like that, not all people want happiness.

@rphb
[I am saying that even if we were to accept the premise of that, as ludicrous as it may be, a better solution then extensive global regulation would be to simply end central banking and fiat currency.]

That would only slow the increase of cumulative emissions.
Even 1/1000 of the current rate of emissions is too much.

[Things like overpopulation is not a problem because it is self-corrective. If there is more individual of a species in a region of a species then it is able to support, they start to fight each other for the scares resources and the weak ones die. ]

Well, yes.
I didn't realize that nature in your part of the world is so bad already that you have trouble imagining how such population correction takes place. Think of birds who forgot to fly to the south caught in -30C winter. The heat (from still open water bodies) and food sources are scarce.
Such correction in human population would have to be at least 10-fold. Basically you are betting on the collapse of the civilisation so that there is not enough knowledge to run the current fossil energy infrastructure any more, not even at 1/1000 of the current rate. Because if there is enough knowledge and enough smart individuals, then without regulations they will continue to emit CO2 from fossil fuels.

[And yes there are things that are limited in supply and oil might very well be one of them, but we won’t keep using oil until there is no more oil at all, only until it is no longer economically feasible. Price solves everything, when it becomes more expensive than the best alternative, we will use the alternative. ]

The market only works optimally if market prices contain all the (indirect) costs. If some costs are not in the prices, then the market would be suboptimal, to put it mildly. We need regulations to sustain our environment even if the CO2 emissions problem were to be miraculously solved. We need the "precautionary principle".

[I agree that subsidies are bad, I don’t like subsidies, I am a minarchist, I want the minimal state, the only legitimate functions of the state is to enforce legal contracts and protect us from violence.]

State regulations are a legal part of a social contract between the state citizens, assuming that the regulations have been decided via direct democracy.

[And regarding environmental regulation, there should be rules against pollution, because pollution damages others property, but it is the sovereign right of each nation-state to determine the details. ]

Well, that needs to change, in that pollution emission taxes have to be globally the same. And the only way to do that is via WTO. In fact, all the pro-globalisation trade deals (WTO, CIPA, NAFTA, etc.) without globally unified pollution taxes are an act of genocide of not only the human species, but of other species as well. Globalisation of trade without globalisation of pollution taxes is pure Machiavellian evil.

[I don’t even know what that means, relativist have no values.]
An absolutist might try to wipe out the human species to protect other species.
A relativist plays a game with other relativists on how many species each can wipe out on this planet and on other planets and on how many profits can be made from it.

[Absolutist don’t have to be Good, a Muslim terrorist is Absolutely evil, but a relativist aren’t even able to comprehend him. A relativist thinks that Muslims can just be integrated into western societies, as a hedonist, he thinks that everyone is a hedonist.]

I think the other way around.
An absolutist believes in "universal human values" to help everyone, including billions and billions of muslims. An Absolutist might be a person of pure heart, who starts to feed stray cats and pidgeons. And eventually she has 200 cats in her apartment and she is out of money and maybe the cats finally will prey on her.

A Relativist observes that muslims behave differently than others, use different strategies than others and observes that in some circumstances their strategies work against some other strategies. A relativist does not hold onto its own strategy at all costs and adapts, if possible.

I have given good and bad examples for both relativists and absolutists.
For me, the only absolutist value is the right of living beings to make choices - which in case of a human society (state citizens) means the right to directly participate in direct democracy. From that, the society itself has to be relatively stable - meaning most of the citizens have to be natives, meaning having many centuries (preferably millennia) of ancestry in that country. Everything else is relative. But society can (and should) limit the possible choices of individuals. Individual citizens are / form the society.

History has shown that societies lose cohesion once they grow above 10 million, the sweetspot of a civilisation is 3-5 million citizens. Sweden is experiencing that now. Funnily so did Chechoslovakians.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' To start with the end, there are plenty of cohesion in Japan. and they have over a hundred million people 98,5% of which are etnically Japanese. The problem is not the number of people in a society, it is diversity. Diversity is what is killing societies. Back in the 1970's Sweden was much like Japan, ethnically homogeneous, than it started on the great social experiment, to replace the local Swedish population, with a foreign low IQ one from the Middle east. The sweet spot for violent criminality is IQ85, and that is the average IQ of Arabs.

[That would only slow the increase of cumulative emissions. Even 1/1000 of the current rate of emissions is too much. ]
So thou admit that market forces can limit the emission by a factor of 1000, that seems like quite a lot for me. If the smug in Baijing was reduced by that much, people wouldn’t have to wear mask anymore. They could actually breathe fresh air again.

[Basically you are betting on the collapse of the civilisation so that there is not enough knowledge to run the current fossil energy infrastructure any more, not even at 1/1000 of the current rate. Because if there is enough knowledge and enough smart individuals, then without regulations they will continue to emit CO2 from fossil fuels.]
So thou admit to be anti-human, even a 1000 reduction won’t be good enough for thee, thou want to stop all combusting, and take us back to the stone ages, to before we discovered fire?
Can’t thou even begin to imagine the sacrifices thou demand from us, and all for the sake of an unproven hypothesis? The real world consequences is abhorrent, and thy reward for all of this is the continued existence in a world that are not worth living in.
Try looking at some of the old predictions, and the deadlines that have already come and gone. The climate hoax is fundamentally no different from a religious nut, that preaches that “the end is neigh”
I think thou misunderstand the purpose of science. Science don’t dictate policy, it is not a religion, science is merely an inquiry. It seeks truth and constantly changes its answer as more data have become available. But thou think thou hast found truth, and are not willing to entertain the idea that thou could be wrong. That is not science, that is faith.

[Well, that needs to change, in that pollution emission taxes have to be globally the same.]
Again, based on thy hypothesis, thou want to bring and end to how international relations works, thou want to create a global state, a tower of babel. I mentioned Hybris before right, of how it is the worst of all possible sins. Show some humility, admit thy own fallibility, that thou could be wrong.

@rphb
[To start with the end, there are plenty of cohesion in Japan. and they have over a hundred million people 98,5% of which are etnically Japanese.]

That is what you assume. In reality, Japan was really fragmented only a few centuries ago. What keeps Japan's population together so far is the tradition of imperialism and emperor. Chechoslovakians did not have that problem. Imperialism is the opposite to democracy. It is also what keeps together UK (the birthplace of democracy, yeah). So repeat after me: imperialism, not nationalism.

[So thou admit that market forces can limit the emission by a factor of 1000, that seems like quite a lot for me.]

That is still 10-20 million tonnes of oil or coal or other types of fossil fuels. That is not trees that you can covertly take down and drag away. The mines and basins and rigs can be surveilled.

[So thou admit to be anti-human, even a 1000 reduction won’t be good enough for thee, thou want to stop all combusting, and take us back to the stone ages, to before we discovered fire?]
Nope. Renewables can take over. And negawatts.
You do know that Archimedes experimented on concentrated solar?

[Can’t thou even begin to imagine the sacrifices thou demand from us, and all for the sake of an unproven hypothesis?]

Greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases is real physics. It is the same physics that drives your microwave oven or in fact any other oven. Be a climate denier and stop using any ovens.

[Try looking at some of the old predictions, and the deadlines that have already come and gone.]
Which predictions? Which deadlines? Hansen's projections are just fine, once you take into account the development of other forcings and feedbacks.

[The climate hoax is fundamentally no different from a religious nut, that preaches that “the end is neigh”
I think thou misunderstand the purpose of science. Science don’t dictate policy, it is not a religion, science is merely an inquiry.]

The only hoax is that driven by climate deniers.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of science.
Science can dictate policy, in that science can give reasonable alternative choices to the decisionmakers (that would be the citizens, not the politicians who are impersonating the middleman attack). The whole scam of representative democracy rests on the ability of the Establishment to limit the choices given to voters and to provide false choices and one "correct choice" and when necessary provide additional opportunities and incentives to vote "correctly". That can be turned around by using science against the Establishment. Why do you think the hellenic science (esp pure mathematics) ran out of steam? Because Imperial Rome and Christian Rome considered science as a threat to their Establishment. They had all the basic building blocks for a steam engine and they had the schematics, but the industrial revolution was postponed. Why? Because the Establishment considered it relatively better to keep population uneducated and themselves in power. Something similar is happening nowadays. The class struggle still carries on, more Gini than ever. The pyramid scheme with Establishment on top of it.

[It seeks truth and constantly changes its answer as more data have become available. But thou think thou hast found truth, and are not willing to entertain the idea that thou could be wrong. That is not science, that is faith.]
You are still not listening.
Greenhouse effect is tied to the very same physical laws of our universe that govern the energy balance of any body. That is not faith, that is science.

[Again, based on thy hypothesis, thou want to bring and end to how international relations works, thou want to create a global state, a tower of babel.]
Quite the contrary, I want to use the existing regulative body of globalisation and make it right.
WTO does not require a global state, at least not to my knowledge. Are you trying to say something about the WTO that is not common knowledge?

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' I do not understand how thou think, thou seem to have an Orwellian doublethink thing going on. At the same time believing in two mutually contradictory positions.
Thou reject national sovereignty, but advocate for democracy. If a nation is not allowed to rule itself but have to follow the dictates of a global body, then it and not its people are in charge. So who is it, the people or the globalist elite, it cannot be both.


I agree that direct democracy as a principle are preferable where it is applicable. But voting needs to be limited to these who have no conflict of interest.
People that are on welfare, that receive more from the government then they get, are in no position to speak of the interest of the nation. The very first condition for being a free man is to carry one’s own weight and being a burden to no one.
My ideal society is a republic in which every: Native, landed, adult, debt free, man, who have completed his military services with honour should have a vote.
I am a big proponent of the draft, it is the duty of every free man to protect his nation. It is important to note that while liberty is a right that comes from God, freedom needs to be defended, and it is not a duty that can be passed on to someone else.
Likewise property is one of the fundamental rights, and one cannot truly stand guard over it, unless one actually have a stake in it. It is easy for the man who have no property, nor the skills to earn one, to demand that it should be “redistributed” (as if it were ever distributed) away from the more virtues men that earned it. The instruments of the state is so dangerous because it is so easy to misuse them.

I am not denying the greenhouse effect. I am just not buying the idea of exponential acceleration of its effect. It is a good thing we have the greenhouse gases, the Earth would be an ice planet without it. As I have said many times, the Earth is alive, she have a metabolism and is in homeostasis. And she have been alive for a billion years.
There are many processes that leads to cooling. And thou art ignoring two very big heat sinks. The ocean from below that have an incredible capacity to store unneeded heat, and space itself. As I have said, thou hast this powerful pathetic imagine of a dying world up in thy head, but that is emotional, not logical.
And I am a sceptic, not a denier, stop poisoning the well.


And it is not that hard to understand, these who makes a law that others must follow, rule them. Free trade is one of the most commonly used excuses to rob local and regional sovereignty and centralise the power. It is very simple, if we can’t say no, we are not in charge.

@rphb
[At the same time believing in two mutually contradictory positions.
Thou reject national sovereignty, but advocate for democracy.]

There should be no national sovereignty on polluting, just as there should be no national sovereignty on creating black holes on Earth, just because muh sovereignty. Or rather, one could take such national sovereignty, but the rest of the plane would make such a country an international outcast.

[ If a nation is not allowed to rule itself but have to follow the dictates of a global body, then it and not its people are in charge. ]

Those are not dictates. Those would be a social contract, decided by the majority of the citizens of each joining member state. A global social contract backed by local social contracts.

[So who is it, the people or the globalist elite, it cannot be both.]

That depends on whether the state citizens can use direct democracy to vote over joining and/or leaving the global arrangement. But the necessary global cap would be set in by the IPCC.

[I agree that direct democracy as a principle are preferable where it is applicable. But voting needs to be limited to these who have no conflict of interest.
People that are on welfare, that receive more from the government then they get, are in no position to speak of the interest of the nation. The very first condition for being a free man is to carry one’s own weight and being a burden to no one.]

Children and youth are not qualified enough to vote.
But elderly should be allowed to vote, except perhaps prisoners and with a diagnosis of mentally challenged. But the pensioners (or any party, really) always have to consider that the other side (the youth) might go on a general strike or leave to another country. The fat welfare state is going down anyway in the lands of the setting sun (and elsewhere besides the land of the rising sun Japan it never really rose).

[My ideal society is a republic in which every: Native, landed, adult, debt free, man, who have completed his military services with honour should have a vote.]

Well, nowadays one could create a robot (or an army) to do conscription for him.
But jokes aside, your idea has both good and bad sides.

[Likewise property is one of the fundamental rights, and one cannot truly stand guard over it, unless one actually have a stake in it. It is easy for the man who have no property, nor the skills to earn one, to demand that it should be “redistributed” (as if it were ever distributed) away from the more virtues men that earned it.]

While in general I tend to agree with you, notice that land is not really a private property - it is a rent from the society with additional rights on deciding the next owner. Thus any citizen "owns" a slice of the public lands as well as a slice of private lands. It is a circular argument, though. And it would be an additional drain to revalidate the "driving skills" so to speak, unless it would be literally decided based on the "driving skills".

[I am not denying the greenhouse effect. I am just not buying the idea of exponential acceleration of its effect.]

Your mistake is to assume that exponential rise would be the worst case.
Weather and climate systems are semichaotic systems with bifurcations and hysteresis events and other fascinating but nasty phenomena. Any statistically significant trend would underestimate the threats.

[As I have said many times, the Earth is alive, she have a metabolism and is in homeostasis. And she have been alive for a billion years.]
And the Gaia cure for the situation is extinction for humans, all mammal species and possibly all vertebrate species and perhaps to all multicellular life on Earth.

[There are many processes that leads to cooling.]
You can't wish away black body radiation physics.

[And thou art ignoring two very big heat sinks.]
The heat sinks (sea ice and glaciers) are sinking into the ocean.

[The ocean from below that have an incredible capacity to store unneeded heat, and space itself.]
You are not being credible. The climate models can estimate those sinks. Those sinks are already warming up faster than ever before in known geological history.

[As I have said, thou hast this powerful pathetic imagine of a dying world up in thy head, but that is emotional, not logical.]
You should try some self-reflection.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' Climate models are not credible. Thou said it theeself, the systems are chaotic. In complex and chaotic system, even a small assumption error leads to a wildly different result.
The Earth seems to be warming in the last 150 years because cities have grown around our measuring stations. And we don’t have accurate data that goes father back.

Regarding sovereignty, there are no “buts” in it. That is like saying “I like freedom of speech but…”
No it is Absolute. I don’t like the hate that the Imans spew forth from their mosques, but he have a right to say it, and it is very important that everyone hears it, because bad ideas needs to be exposed, not hidden.
There is no buts in sovereignty. Its either sovereign or its not. And that global body thou want, they can regulate on CO2 emissions, which means everything from industrial activity to me literally farthing.
And sovereignty is essential for democracy. It is a nations right to rule itself, for a people to freely decide which political affiliations they want to be a part of, that makes it democratic.
Secession is a right, people may not want to leave a political union, especially not if it brings benefits. But if they want to leave and are not allowed, that is the definition of slavery.
By rejection sovereignty, thou art logically saying that everyone should be a slave, to the global fart control police.
We shouldn’t have the United Nations, We shouldn’t have the EU and the USA, we shouldn’t have empires.
I don’t know how many times the Radical Left or other parties have used UN treaties to overrule Danish Law. The only ones more qualified as to what should and should not be Danish Law, then the politicians in Christiansborg, is the people themselves.
I know where Cristiansborg is, it is a few hours away by train, I can write to my local folketingsmand. It is not ideal, I want more direct democracy, and I don’t want welfare sponges to have the privilege to vote, but it is relatively close. Brussels is not, and New York even less so.

What is Good and Evil does not require a privilege position, one does not need to meditate for years to reach the understanding. It is immediately accessible to everyone.
No one knows better than thee what is good for thee, no one have the right to interfere in thine free choices, unless they violate others.
There is no need for a global body, no need for empires, because everyone knows what is Good. The states exist for people that chooses to do evil, it exist to punish individual for transgressions, and to protect the community at large, from foreign threats.
It doesn’t matter what people in other countries think. Democracy does not work like that. We need consensus on one crucial thing. We need to all agree to want to be part of the state. If an individual disagrees he emigrates, if a larger group disagree they secede.

Now imagine a referendum. The people in China and Mongolia decide if Mongolia should be annexed by China and join as a new province.
Both countries hold a referendum. In china 55% of the population votes in favour of the annexation, in Mongolia 99,8% votes against (some of the votes were invalid and there was this one chinaman in Ulan Bator). But as Mongolia have 3 million people and China have over 1,3 billion, the total result in Absolut numbers are an overwhelming yes.
The red army marches over the border and despite resisting the Mongolians are quickly overwhelmed. Democratic right?
NO, of course not, that is not how democracy works. A global body is anti-democratic by nature, and it is anti-human and anti-God. It is about the tower of Babel, it is about thinking that they know better than everyone else what is good for them. That is the ultimate form of tyranny.
We need to always be able to say No.

@rphb
[Climate models are not credible. Thou said it theeself, the systems are chaotic. In complex and chaotic system, even a small assumption error leads to a wildly different result.]

Climate models are credible.
And in the parts that the models aren't credible the reality deviates from the models. You do understand what deviation means? It means bad things are gonna happen - even worse than the models predict. Miraculous unidentified stabilising feedbacks do not exist. Planetary self-regulation is a very slow process, the climate sensitivity is smallest in the middle (holocene climate) and climate sensitivity is higher the further you deviate from the holocene climate. And there is no comeback for the planet from above 30C global average temp.

[The Earth seems to be warming in the last 150 years because cities have grown around our measuring stations. And we don’t have accurate data that goes father back.]

Are you mining your climate denial memes from the
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
?
Why don't you mine the answers from there as well.

Heat island effects have been taken into account.
And we do have accurate enough data (as proxies) way back.

[Regarding sovereignty, there are no “buts” in it. That is like saying “I like freedom of speech but…”
No it is Absolute. ]

Rubbish.
Total independence would be bidirectional - no foreign trade whatsoever, no contacts whatsoever. Contacts and foreign trade means contracts, preferably social contracts.

[ It is a nations right to rule itself, for a people to freely decide which political affiliations they want to be a part of, that makes it democratic.
Secession is a right, people may not want to leave a political union, especially not if it brings benefits. But if they want to leave and are not allowed, that is the definition of slavery.]

Sure, they can leave the WTO.
And then WTO can leave them and all their products.

[By rejection sovereignty, thou art logically saying that everyone should be a slave, to the global fart control police.]
That is a strawman.
I haven't claimed what you suggest I have.

[We shouldn’t have the United Nations, We shouldn’t have the EU and the USA, we shouldn’t have empires.]

But we still need WTO for environmental regulations.
Look at it as turning the organisation against its creators (the big polluting business).

[I don’t know how many times the Radical Left or other parties have used UN treaties to overrule Danish Law.]

That is why two-tier social contracts are needed and why the national tier has to be based on direct democracy.

[It is not ideal, I want more direct democracy, and I don’t want welfare sponges to have the privilege to vote, but it is relatively close.]
And I agree here. And if the majority of citizens decides this way, then the fat welfare state would be ended.

[There is no need for a global body, no need for empires, because everyone knows what is Good.]
Here I disagree.
Direct democracy is about what is preferable for the majority of citizens.
Dictatorship is about what is good (for the dictator, obviously).

[Now imagine a referendum. The people in China and Mongolia decide if Mongolia should be annexed by China and join as a new province.
Both countries hold a referendum. In china 55% of the population votes in favour of the annexation, in Mongolia 99,8% votes against (some of the votes were invalid and there was this one chinaman in Ulan Bator). But as Mongolia have 3 million people and China have over 1,3 billion, the total result in Absolut numbers are an overwhelming yes.]

The legal decisions over the territory of Mongolia are to be decided by the citizens of Mongolia, not the citizens of China.

[Democratic right? ]
Wrong.

[NO, of course not, that is not how democracy works. A global body is anti-democratic by nature, and it is anti-human and anti-God.]

Global body is fine, for as long as it grows out of nation state social contracts.
That global body is not a company, nor the Establishment. One does not even have buildings for it. Nowadays that can all be done virtually, by the citizens of different countries.
We will virtualise away the global bodies.

[That is the ultimate form of tyranny.
We need to always be able to say No.]

By way of unfortunate accidents, Finland and Estonia are the only rightful heirs of the Roman Empire. The only two non-indoeuropean countries in Europe (if we set aside Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan). Estonia and Finland have virtualised that legacy in order to make sure that Russia's Voldemort shall never get it again. That is what E-stonia is all about. We will chain that virtual legacy with blockchain, we have split it and created (hor-)cruxes that we will hide away in various places. Estonia has a space program and we will hid it underground as well ;-)
And we will use quantum entanglement once it becomes widely available.

My point is that new tech opens up new ways (and re-enables old ways) to practice direct democracy and to keep it from falling into wrong hands.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' [And in the parts that the models aren't credible the reality deviates from the models. You do understand what deviation means? It means bad things are gonna happen - even worse than the models predict.]

No that is not what diviation means, it means that reality can fall in either direction of what is predicted, and we constantly see how these models exaggerates the effect. But as I said, there is no point in discussing this pseudo science with thee.
And ultimately this is not a scientific issue it is a moral and political issue. What thou art claiming is that ye know better what is good for us, than we do. And that we do not have the right to say “no”.
I hate, absolutely hate these Christian evangelist that talks about Hell and tries to use it to scare people into doing what they say. For people that don’t believe in Hell their arguments have no effect. Instead of taking the high road and use reason and evidence to prove that a virtues life is a better life, they just tries to use scare tactic, completely missing the core tenet of Christendom: Fear not!.

And thou art doing the same thing, I don’t believe in thy hellish fantasy. Thou obviously art completely convinced by its validity and are too emotionally invested in it to actually think critical about it, but for people that are not invested in it, thou art just another irrational doomsayer.

As I said, there are a few Absolute principles, first among them is the right to self determination. People can of course choose to completely isolate themselves and become hermits, but humans are inherently a social and political animal, so we have a need for society.
Foreign trade does not in itself diminish our independence. The problem is not free trade, only free trade organizations. True free trade does not need to be organized, that is just an individual entrepreneur that chooses to import a good from abroad and the state not restricting him. It does not require law or treaties of any kind.
A free trade organization on the other hand is all about creating a common market, it is about handing over sovereignty to a supranational organization that then dictates policies to the members. The European Union is the most advanced form of a free trade organization. It does not promote free trade, it promotes servitude, and it actively discourages trade with external parties, like for instance the Russian Federation. So free trade organizations does the exact opposite of what they claim to stand for, they rob their members of their sovereignty and they promote protectionism.
As I said, true free trade requires no treaty, true free trade is laissez-faire. Luckily the world trade organization is not as powerful as the EU, but it should still be abolished, as it only serves the interest of globalist and not the people.

[Sure, they can leave the WTO. And then WTO can leave them and all their products.]
Thou want to embargo people that don’t want to play along, to punish them. Tell me what did thou think of Brexit?
It was a rare case in Britain of direct democracy, and I have heard nothing but whining from people on the left, that they made the wrong choice, and that this is proof that people should not be asked. The left often claim that they like democracy, but only when it goes there way.

To make it clear, the political spectrum have two dimensions.
On the left we have socialism (progressivism, totalitarianism), on the right we have liberalism (conservatism, minarchism), on the top we have globalism (elitism, imperialism) and on the bottom we have nationalism (populism).
I put () around the alternative words that people sometimes also use for the ideologies.
Any authoritarian position is on the left. The left is divided into two camps. Global-socialism (communism), and national-socialism (Nazism, fascism)
Nazism is often incorrectly called right wing, but it is always abridged to hide the fact that it is a form of socialism.
The key tenet about socialism is collectivism, that the group is more important than the individual. That is the defining difference between a socialist and a liberalist. Liberals put the individual first, and as I said one can only put one first, no “buts” allowed.

I mentioned three rights that are sacrosanct: life, liberty and property. They do not serve any other purpose, just as an actions inherent goodness or wickedness does not depend on its consequences.
It is wrong to steel or lie, period. There are no circumstances that justify it, there are no consequences that validates it. It is evil in itself, malum in se.
It is not complicated, it is so simple that even a child understand it. In fact in most cases only a small child can, as most adults get confused from all the false dogma that are pumped into their minds from an early age. I was born differently, I am inherently critical to authority, that most others trust as a matter of course. It is not a unique skill, but it is rare enough to make me an oddity. But it have given me a sight that most loses, but that we are all born with.

As I said, I am a minarchist, I recognizes the danger of state power, but also the necessity for it. We cannot live in a stateless society, violence is a part of life, we need the state to minimize it.
A state is a special kind of institution, as it uses violence to enforce rules, called laws, and that it have a monopoly on violence within a fixed geographic territory.
Take a moment to understand the power there is in that, making rules that all must follow, and having the power to ultimately kill these who refuse.
Not all states are ideal, I don’t think any state are, but the principle of national sovereignty is to respect all states regardless of whether they follow ones own morals or not. Even if a foreign state is a brutal dictatorship, as long as it does not directly threaten our security, we should not try to overthrow it.
It is not any different from the punching a Nazi discussion. We don’t have the right to punch a Nazi in the face, just because he is a Nazi. We have the right to self-defense, but it doesn’t matter what the person attracting us belief.
It is the same thing with states, it doesn’t matter if a foreign state is a dictatorship, we don’t have the right to use violence against it, unless it threatens us first.
Thou want to impose rules that all must follow, and punish these that do not, and thou don’t care if they have popular support or not.
As I said these who believe in democracy, must accept national sovereignty, that all people have the right to decide for themselves, and that their decisions might not always align with thine wishes.

@rphb
[ No that is not what diviation means, it means that reality can fall in either direction of what is predicted, and we constantly see how these models exaggerates the effect. ]
Quite the opposite on both accounts.

[And ultimately this is not a scientific issue it is a moral and political issue.]
It is all of the three.

[ What thou art claiming is that ye know better what is good for us, than we do. And that we do not have the right to say “no”.]
I am saying that climate scientists know best. Consensus of the IPCC.

[True free trade does not need to be organized, that is just an individual entrepreneur that chooses to import a good from abroad and the state not restricting him. It does not require law or treaties of any kind.]
Yeah, free market of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium.
Because of the invisible hand of the "free market".

[A free trade organization on the other hand is all about creating a common market, it is about handing over sovereignty to a supranational organization that then dictates policies to the members.]
At present, perhaps.
But the new free trade organisations can be virtualised and virtueized.

[ The European Union is the most advanced form of a free trade organization. It does not promote free trade, it promotes servitude, and it actively discourages trade with external parties, like for instance the Russian Federation.]

Are you worried about Russia? Or Norway?
You have been giving off confusing vibes.

[As I said, true free trade requires no treaty, true free trade is laissez-faire.]
Impossible.
Any contract would have to be "signed" with the attendance of a 3rd neutral party. Without WTO or any other international trade organisation, there would be no 3rd party, meaning that it would become impossible to seek arbitration. And any arbitration would have to rest on common rules agreed beforehand in a common international treaty.

[Thou want to embargo people that don’t want to play along, to punish them. Tell me what did thou think of Brexit?]
UK is still part of the WTO. And might join EFTA. So UK will be fine.

[To make it clear, the political spectrum have two dimensions.]
A 2-dimensional political map can concentrate on at most 2 questions.
One new tax and one tax benefit and that's it.
The real political map consists of thousands of dimensions. Which in turn means that one would need more parties than there are molecules on the Earth. Which in turn means that any party system limits and obfuscates decisionmaking and thus is not democratic.

[The key tenet about socialism is collectivism, that the group is more important than the individual. That is the defining difference between a socialist and a liberalist.]
Perhaps. But the key unifying theme is that both socialism and liberalism as practiced by the Establishment are not democracies. Representative democracy is an oxymoron.

That is not punishment.
The states that do not participate in an international contract on trade do not take part in it.

[As I said these who believe in democracy, must accept national sovereignty, that all people have the right to decide for themselves, and that their decisions might not always align with thine wishes.]
Sure. But accepting does not necessarily mean accepting doing business without a contract.
Perhaps you would like to sell me your house and I will give a word that I will pay money for it.
A word. Not a contract. Not even THE word. And not MY word. I will give you a random word.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' 1) Diviation
I just have to link to Webster here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deviation
To argue this further would be ludicrous

2) [I am saying that climate scientists know best. Consensus of the IPCC.]
There is no consensus in the climate science, there are many in the man made global warming camp, and then there are some independent scientist that says otherwise.
The problem is that it is a highly politicized field, and that the scientist that speaks in favior of man made global warming have a clear conflict of interest, as they are financed by the politicians that wants to use their result to push for further globalization.
In other words they are not credible. Thou want to hear the truth, then try to listen to people that speaks their opinion despite great personal risk.

3) Free Trade
I am not saying that we should have complete uninhibited free trade. Especially regarding weapons states needs to put up some restictions. What I am saying is that free trade IS when states do not interfere.
And we do not NEED a third party in trade. If I for instance makes a deal with a coffee house in Indonesia and he negates on the contract, his words will be ruined. No one wants to trade with someone that is known to break contracts. In all human relations, but especially in trade we need trust. We need to trust that the other party will deliver.
What a third party can do is to give us additional leverage. This is practical for minor players. Big merchant houses lives and dies by their reputation, but individual scammers can disappear in the hoard.
The legal enforcement that states provide can help lend legitimacy to new companies that have yet to build up a reputation. These things are completely in international trade. There is also the simple fact that, an import-export business have both his home state and the foreign state to enforce the contract.
If I sell bacon to an American company, even if our respective reputations wasn’t enough, we would both have the Danish Government and the American Government to back up our contract, both of which would be interested in an honest exchange. There is simply no need for WTO, and the simple fact that world trade worked just fine for thousands of years before its existence is proof of that.

4) Who am I worried about?
I am worried about losing sovereignty, I am worried about losing my liberty. I am not worried about Russia, they have no reason to attack us, and they would have to go though you first anyway. I hate the protectionism of the EU, I want free trade with Russia, our pig farmers have suffered a lot from the EU embargo. I want friendly relations, and I don’t care what Putin does in his own back yard, as I said, it is his back yard, and we need to respect that.
If WWIII happens it would be because of globalist, Putin have every right to defend his country.

5) To dimensional political spectrum.
Okay thou need to know why there are two, and only two dimensions in the political spectrum.
The left-right dichotomy is about masculinism and feminism.
Masculinism is rational and independent, feminism is emotional and dependent. It comes from biology.
It is the r/K selection. Where the right is k-selective and the left is r-selective. That is whether we have a competitive or non-competitive strategy.
The rights have winners and losers, the left wants everyone to get along. Or put another way, liberals are dicks and socialist are pussies.

The elitism, populism dimension is vertical rather than horizontal, because it is spiritual and not biological. Elitist, without exception, suffer from hybris, some goes so far as to reject God, but all thinks that they knows best. Where populism is humble, it is admitting our own fallibility.

@rphb
[
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deviation
To argue this further would be ludicrous ]

You fail to recognize that in a warming world, models usually underestimate the coming change. Any statistical model usually underestimates the variability of a phenomenon. We already know that the phenomenon exists by the science of physics. Thus if you say that the climate models are wrong, it could only mean that the climate models underestimate the change. And any climate change means more future costs. THus you actually inadvertantly suggest that we are facing larger future costs than written in the IPCC reports. The climate model results are further watered down by the government representatives in the IPCC, because contrary to the make belief and obfuscation of the climate denialists (of which you very likely seem to be one), governments of independent states of the world have essentially done nothing to try to solve the AGW issue, for 30 years already. Why? Because the fossil fuels industry has been stronger than the citizens, after all, the fossil fuels industry got Trump elected.

[There is no consensus in the climate science, there are many in the man made global warming camp, and then there are some independent scientist that says otherwise.]

There is consensus in climate science.
Saying otherwise is not good enough. You would need to do and publish actual science to try refute the consensus (and do it repeatedly, separately by several independent scientists). So far, very few have tried that (publish climate science that would significantly overturn the IPCC findings) and all have failed, many have even joined the consensus.

[The problem is that it is a highly politicized field, and that the scientist that speaks in favior of man made global warming have a clear conflict of interest, as they are financed by the politicians that wants to use their result to push for further globalization.
In other words they are not credible.]

No.
You are not credible.
The governments are together with the big fossil fuels business making sure that BAU (business as usual) would go on. For 30 years already.

[Thou want to hear the truth, then try to listen to people that speaks their opinion despite great personal risk.]
LOL. Who are those supposedly at great risk? The Koch Brothers?
And which kind of personal risk, exactly? Financial risk? That might be believable.

[And we do not NEED a third party in trade. If I for instance makes a deal with a coffee house in Indonesia and he negates on the contract, his words will be ruined. No one wants to trade with someone that is known to break contracts.]

But you DO need a third party. Otherwise nobody would have reason to believe your side of the story.

[Big merchant houses lives and dies by their reputation, but individual scammers can disappear in the hoard.]

See - that setup would only reinforce oligopoly or monopoly.

[The legal enforcement that states provide can help lend legitimacy to new companies that have yet to build up a reputation.]
In this case the states are the 3rd party.

[There is simply no need for WTO, and the simple fact that world trade worked just fine for thousands of years before its existence is proof of that.]
Yes and no.
Metal ages took thousands of years to spread to every corner of the continent.
WTO is needed to fight against global pollution. Before the onset of industrial age, there was less need for WTO. You can't solve a global Tragedy of the Commons problem without a global body like UN IPCC or WTO.

[I hate the protectionism of the EU, I want free trade with Russia, our pig farmers have suffered a lot from the EU embargo. I want friendly relations, and I don’t care what Putin does in his own back yard, as I said, it is his back yard, and we need to respect that.]
Your attitude is exactly what made Russia so reckless.
Russia should have been sanctioned to submission since the first Chechen War or the Abkhaz conflict or the Moldova conflict. The same thing that is happening in Ukraine for the last years has been going on in other places for 25+ years already, nonstop. In some places Kremlin has upgraded its occupation troops / green men to the status of "peacekeepers".

[If WWIII happens it would be because of globalist, Putin have every right to defend his country.]
In which borders exactly? And how would the globalists be at fault? Are there any globalist military troops in Russia taking part in any military conflict? Do tell me, because that might be interesting.

[Okay thou need to know why there are two, and only two dimensions in the political spectrum.]
There are thousands of political dimensions.
Not two.
Thousands.
You can't reduce those thousands of dimensions into 2 dimensions without loss of information.
The current political system is faulty by design. It cannot possibly (not in theory and not in practice) adequately represent the will of the citizenry. Only direct democracy can. Or a system that besides direct democracy also has some representative democracy.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' 1) Climate change
The world is not warming, thou keep begging the question, using thy conclusion to support thy premise. A deviation means that the models can underestimate or overestimate the real problem. Try to listen to theeself for a moment. Either what we say is true or it is even worse. Yea no I call bullshit.
And thou art just trying to make linguistic warfare by calling me a “climate denier” I don’t deny anything but I am highly sceptical to people that have every reason to lie.
I know all about these linguistic tricks, I have been studying them. Take the word “Islamophobia” it is the kind of “the king of France is bald” kind of words. A phobia is an irrational fear, that the recipient recognises as irrational and handicapping. It is not a political conviction. There are legitimate and rational reason to be opposed to Islam.
By using such a word, one delegitimise ones opponent. Instead of engaging them in a rational discussion, one dismisses them as insane.
I don’t have a legitimate grievances, I am just in denial, that is what thou says, so there is no reason to consider my position.
But calling your opposition crazy doesn’t convince them, it only galvanises them. If thou hast no good argument, if thou hast to result to ad hominum attack, that’s proof that thy position is weak.
And then thou crank up the crazy one more notch by pointing to the “grand conspiracy” of the fossil fuel lobby. Coal and oil are very rich energy sources and their lobbies aren’t holding the alternative energy back. On the contrary it is heavily subsidised. If the state simply stood out of the way as I want, because as I said I am a minarchist, most of the alternative energy plans would disappear, as they simply aren’t profitable without state subsidies. So it is actually the opposite.

2) Consensus
“It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes” Joseph Stalin
A close win can become an unanimous victory by simply purging everything that voted against him. Uncle Joe was good at that, which is why so many disappeared after he took over.
My point is that if only ye ignore dissenters ye can pretend that there is none. There are academic studies that are rather safe, I don’t think most care about theoretical physics one way or another, but climate is as I said highly politicized.

3) Tragedy of the commons
The idea behind that is that it is a special type of economic good that is riverble but nonexclusable.
Fish in the ocean is often quoted as an example. I don’t know what thou had in mind, pollution is always a local phenomenon. I told thee that “global warming” is a different category to pollution. This is another example of poisoning the well. Everyone knows pollution is bad, but CO2 emission is not pollution. It happens every time we breath, every time we fart. That was why I called thy global body the world fart police, I was taking thy ideas to the logical conclusion, and used inflammatory words, to make it more clear. I don’t like to hide my intentions behind academic jargon.
But for fish in the ocean the answer is clear, have sovereign sea zones and prevent foreign ships from entering. The tragedy of the commons is solved simply by removing everything from the commons and into the realm of private property.

4) Russian sanctions
I don’t think thou understand realpolitik and the principle of national sovereignty yet. Should we then not also put sanctions on America, for their war crimes and constant violation of other nations national borders?
The idea behind sanctions is that thou think that thou comes from a position of power. When I hear thy speak about this, I feel that thou see theeself as sort of like a schoolteacher that are trying to ensure that all of the children are playing nice. But I got a secret to share with thee: there are no teacher, there is only the kids.
No one have any authority over another, and there are no rules, only the rule of the jungle.

Should we have put sanctions on the Soviet union? What instead of the Sino-soviet split it had become the Sino-soviet union. What if the dollar had collapsed in the panic of 1980 and the USA had desolved. Then NATO desolved and Germany had been unified under the DDR, with France, Spain and Italy joining the Warsaw Pact.
Who then should put sanctions on whom? Alternative history is fun, it makes us consider what might have been.
Sanctions is a fundamental breach on the soverignity of other nationstates. It goes against the principles laid out in the Westphalia treaty of 1648, and it goes against the principles of free trade.
Free trade is about NOT putting obstacles in the way. We don’t want to galvanize our enemies, and there is an old saying that we should not poke the bear.
How well doth thou truly think Estonia would faire if we really allowed this to escalate to war?
Thou may not know that the petrodollar is failing, and that the world is on the brink of economic collapse. Thou may not even know what the petrodollar is, but it is the source of US power. The USA will not be able to survive its collapse, and even if it were somehow able to keep itself together it would be completely incapable of helping little far away Estonia. So I say again, it would not be wise to poke the bear. Having friendly relations with ones neighbors will make them much less likely to become hostile. It is never a good idea to bully a bully.
It is not thirty years since Estonia was part of Russia, and it might very well become a province again.

Realpolitik is not about right and wrong, it is about power, and respecting others sovereignty is the best guarantee that they will respect yours.

@rphb
[A deviation means that the models can underestimate or overestimate the real problem.]

In theory. But not in climate.
You would need to have negative feedbacks as strong as positive feedbacks.
Current positive feedbacks (the change) are at least 10x stronger (faster) than at any time during the known geological past of this planet (of at least 300 million years).
And I have repeatedly stressed that climate sensitivity is lowest in the middle, and highest away from the middle - if you were smarter then you would understand that this effectively means that planetary self-correction (the Gaia hypothesis) is very weak and slow and easily overwhelmed by sudden fast climate forcings (we have a record forcing here at present). There is hope to rebound from a snowball Easrth, but there is very little hope to rebound from a Venusian Earth. And the sun keeps slowly warming up during millions of years.

[but I am highly sceptical to people that have every reason to lie.]
[And then thou crank up the crazy one more notch by pointing to the “grand conspiracy” of the fossil fuel lobby. Coal and oil are very rich energy sources and their lobbies aren’t holding the alternative energy back.]

Merchants of Doubt. Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway

[If the state simply stood out of the way as I want, because as I said I am a minarchist, most of the alternative energy plans would disappear, as they simply aren’t profitable without state subsidies. ]

Fossil fuels industry is still being subsidised 10x more than the renewables industry.
The annual CO2 indirect costs itself are estimated to be around 2-20 trillion USD/EUR. Annually. Each year.
And then there are other costs - water, land, emitted uranium, other pollutants. And tax subsidies.
So it is actually the opposite.

[My point is that if only ye ignore dissenters ye can pretend that there is none. There are academic studies that are rather safe, I don’t think most care about theoretical physics one way or another, but climate is as I said highly politicized.]

You have nothing, because there is no such study (at least not by now) that would overturn the climate consensus. You have more chance appealing to additional dimensions of space-time and god-like aliens deliberately changing Earth's climate and its ramifications to our climate than to show any tangible down-to earth scientific study that would support your case.

[ I don’t know what thou had in mind, pollution is always a local phenomenon.]
LOL.
Pollution from Fukushima was detected in Lithuania 1-2 weeks after the accident.
Air pollution is global and the spread time is up to 2 years (which is also often cited as the impact time of a volcano eruption). Ocean pollution is also global, but it takes much longer.

[Everyone knows pollution is bad, but CO2 emission is not pollution.]
I guess eventually at some point I would have to admit that you seem to be a lost case. A general science denier. How did the PISA science test go? Not so great, I presume?

[The tragedy of the commons is solved simply by removing everything from the commons and into the realm of private property.]

You mean even more than it already is? Are you preaching feudalism? Or tribalism?

[I don’t think thou understand realpolitik and the principle of national sovereignty yet. Should we then not also put sanctions on America, for their war crimes and constant violation of other nations national borders?]
I am constantly getting strong vibes that you may not be danish at all. Are you a german? Or a russian-german?

[The idea behind sanctions is that thou think that thou comes from a position of power.]
No. The idea behind sanctions is that the other alternative to sanctions is arming up Ukraine or even sending NATO troops into Ukraine to help put down the local warlords. And Russia should be fine, since there are no Russian troops there in the Ukraine, thus no reason to get worried. Perhaps Ukraine would even miraculously buy Leopards and Raptors from local cornershops. I hear the prices are very low there.

[No one have any authority over another, and there are no rules, only the rule of the jungle.]
Another opinion that does not look like a danish or a nordic one.

[Should we have put sanctions on the Soviet union? What instead of the Sino-soviet split it had become the Sino-soviet union. What if the dollar had collapsed in the panic of 1980 and the USA had desolved. Then NATO desolved and Germany had been unified under the DDR, with France, Spain and Italy joining the Warsaw Pact.]

LOL.
Joining the Warsaw Pact? Voluntarily? Has that ever happened?

[We don’t want to galvanize our enemies, and there is an old saying that we should not poke the bear.]
So you are a russian? Or a russian-german?
There is another saying: finno-ugrians dance at the bear burials.
A bear is a bear is a bear. A bear is not human, nor is it humane. A bear is only a step-brother to humans.
If one behaves like a bear, one will be treated as a bear. Bears that steal or plunder human properties will be skinned. We are good at this, quite a lot of bears are skinned in Estonia every year. And we dance as well.
So don't believe for a second that a totem animal status would somehow protect the bear. Yes, we here in Estonia also keep the bear population in check. But in western Europe, the bears were hunted to extinction.

[How well doth thou truly think Estonia would faire if we really allowed this to escalate to war?]
Who are the 'we'? You?
We do not stray to Russia to kidnap government officials.
During the interwar period between 1920 and 1939, about 20 Estonian border guards were killed on border duties by the USSR side. About 1 annually.

And how did we stray from AGW to Kremlin? Any Climategate / SwiftHack connections?
Are you aware that the Russian Academy of Sciences fully supports the findings of IPCC reports?
And that Putin and Medvedev have both at least once openly admitted that AGW is a real phenomenon and should be stopped?

[So I say again, it would not be wise to poke the bear.]
Poking or not poking THE bear has little effect on what THE bear will do once an opportunity arises.
Game theoretically it makes sense to speak out loud while you still can.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' At hominum attack means nothing to me, these insult only further underscores how weak thy position truly is.
There is no point trying to show thee any real data, the little that there actually are, because thy mind is completely made up. There is no scientific curiosity in there, no philosophical humility.
I understand that thou art afraid of the boogieman of “global warming” But it is a monster thou can only see after thou hast decided that it is there.
It reminds me of a story I read some years ago about a man that came from an undergrown city. He had never seen the sun. He found it quite beautiful. Despite him being a rational person he came from a superstitious culture that prayed to dark gods. And when he saw with his own eyes that the sun started rising less and less every day, he feared that the dark gods were after him, because he knew, based on what he saw, that it would only be a month before the sun would have disappeared forever. And then Christmas came, (winter solstice), and the circle turned back.
There are circles we cannot see because they span an entire generation or more, the Kondratiev wave is one such example, it is exactly the length of a human lifespan. It is a four generation circle because the fifth is not born before after the first is dead, so they are like the first and makes the same mistakes.
First we have cooling, then we have warming, and maybe we should just call it climate change, because it seems to obvious if we keep flip-flopping.


Likewise I don’t care where thou think I am from, beyond the fact that thy accusation of me for deciding my country of origin, comes from a new desire to delegitimise me. Afterall, a known liar is not to be trusted. People that speak the truth, especially people that are Christians and not anti-Russian have often been accused for being a Russian agent.
Thou art completely delusional when it comes to Russia. The bear is of course synonymous with Russia, and if thou think that Estonia can do anything if it came to a conflict with Russia thou art sadly mistaken.
My point about the alternative history I wrote, where China joins the Soviet union and USA collapses was to open thy mind to an alternative, one where Russia was the worlds sole superpower.
The Sino-soviet union could have happened if Mao had died a little earlier, and USA nearly did collapse in 1980. It is also something that is going to happen, at some point in the not too distant future. The crisis of 1980 is nothing compared to what we have now. When the markets finally break, the dollar will hyperinflate into nothing. Without the capacity to borrow the US will default, and then the bad stuff really starts because their over forty years of constant trade deficit have left their country barren for productive industries and made their popules accustomed to a living standard that in one stroke have become impossible. This anger will lead to secessions and likely civil war.
Then people will have other things to worry about then thine stupid fantasies. For one thing, doing the disintegrating EU, the Baltic is sure to fall back into the Russian sphere of influence.
But my point of all of this is, to try and open thy mind to another reality, one in which thou art not in a position of strength but in a position of weakness.
Thou think that the alternative to economic sanctions is military intervention. What about noting? What about simply accepting the new status que because there is nothing ye can do about it.
And thou don’t know the full story about Ukraine anyway, it was a colour revolution, if that means anything to thee. The short answer is that it was a US sponsored coup against a legitimate government for the purpose of installing a Washington friendly puppet.

The Natural Rights are: life, liberty and property, and the primary duty is the non-initiation of force. We can only use force as a defence, and there is nothing more officious then to rush guns braising, uninvited into a conflict that we know little about.

That is as I have said multiple times, thy fundamental problem. Hybris, thou think that thou hast it all figured out, and lack the humility to doubt thy own convictions. Thou must be very young, properly a teenager still.

@rphb
[There are circles we cannot see because they span an entire generation or more, the Kondratiev wave is one such example, it is exactly the length of a human lifespan. It is a four generation circle because the fifth is not born before after the first is dead, so they are like the first and makes the same mistakes.
First we have cooling, then we have warming, and maybe we should just call it climate change, because it seems to obvious if we keep flip-flopping. ]

All such natural cycles have been taken into account.
Moreover, if such a cycle is a cycle, then it cancels itself out over one cycle.
Furthermore, none of your fantasies can wish away the very real physical effects of greenhouse warming and (black-) body radiation. Earth's radiation budget is out of balance due to AGW.

It is not enough to come up with an alternative idea for current warming - you would need to debunk a lot of physics in the process as well.

[People that speak the truth, especially people that are Christians and not anti-Russian have often been accused for being a Russian agent.
Thou art completely delusional when it comes to Russia. The bear is of course synonymous with Russia, and if thou think that Estonia can do anything if it came to a conflict with Russia thou art sadly mistaken.]

Estonia (and Latvia and Lithuania and Poland and Finland) has already done quite a lot regarding Russia.
Our politicians blackmailed Gorbachev to admit and reveal the MRP secret protocols.
Kennan (of the Kennan Doctrine) was indoctrinated in Estonia and Latvia.
In 1918-1920 Russia got beaten back.
And between 1939-1945, USSR lost about 2 million soviet soldiers against Finland and in the Baltics and tied up another 2 million soviet soldiers. Soviet tanks destroyed - thousands. Finland and the Baltics caused more casualties to Kremlin than Poland and Japan combined.
Oh, and Latvian Red Rifles of 1917-18 were the only military troops in the known history to have taken both Moscow and St. Petersburg.
And Estonia and Finland are both legal successors (based on legal continuity) of the Russian Empire, something that RF lacks. Thus Finland and Estonia are the only legal successors of the Roman Empire. And coincidentally, Finland and Estonia are the only countries whose troops have had better than equal casualty rates against German troops during the 20th century.

[Then people will have other things to worry about then thine stupid fantasies. For one thing, doing the disintegrating EU, the Baltic is sure to fall back into the Russian sphere of influence.
But my point of all of this is, to try and open thy mind to another reality, one in which thou art not in a position of strength but in a position of weakness.]

I do understand that you are seeking incentives to shut me up.
But you are failing. Game theory suggests that in face of near certain death of a nation, one might as well speak up.

[Thou think that the alternative to economic sanctions is military intervention. What about noting? What about simply accepting the new status que because there is nothing ye can do about it.]

That was the Chamberlain Munich approach. It failed.
Estonia's Päts tried it as well in 1939. Didn't work out as well as that of Finland.
You fail to realise that even if there is nothing one can do about it, one might as well do it.
You also need to take into account that in case of a NATO failure, expect Russia to have a dozen MAD neighbours with independent MAD capabilities. And not just nuclear capabilities. Then we can see how Putin chews his tie.

Thou must be very young, properly a teenager still.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' I am not trying to shot thee up, I am trying to open thy mind to other possibilities. I know that thou think that thy worldview is based on very strong data but until thou art willing to admit that thou might be wrong, thou will not be able to see past the dogma.
Real science as I have said, is an inquiry, not a doctrine. It is never settled, never certain. The basis for a scientific mind is curiosity and humility. Only when one have admitted ignorance is it possible to learn.

When it comes to geopolitics thou need to have a timeframe that goes beyond the 20th century. It is not always the good guys that win.
The Crusaders tried and failed to take back the holy land, the end result was the fall of Constantinople, and within a century after that the saracens was at the gates of Vienna.

If thou know theeself and thy enemy, thou need fear a thousand battles,
if thou know theeself but not thy enemy for every victory gained thou will also suffer a defeat.
If thou know neither the enemy nor theeself, thou will succumb in every battle.
Sun Tzu, the art of war

Another lesson from Sun Tzu is that it is better to avoid war completely and if war is inevitable one should try to make it quick and decisive as any prolonged conflict is detrimental to ones nation.

And do not think when I say that the Baltic will fall under Russian influence that it means that they will simply invade, something that might provoke a response. It is that they along with China will be the dominant military, economic and cultural powers in the 21st century, because as the eagle is falling, the bear and the dragon is rising.
Like all nations Russia have suffered defeats in the past, like all nations does that don’t adapt to the time. Napoleon the third suffered a terrible defeat to the Prussians in 1870. The Germans thought they could do the same in 1914 and take Paris in a matter of weeks. They were mistaken and were clogged in the trenches for years on end.
The French thought that the trenches that had worked so well in WWI would work again in WWII, they were mistaken, this time the German offensive though Belgium really were quick and decisive. Defeat have always come to the people that closes their eyes to reality, because they see their ideas as perfect.

Russia won’t have as far a reach as they had doing the cold war. Their influence is sure to reach the Baltics. Poland will function as a buffer state between them and Germany that will regain full great power status, with France and England serving as a balance. Scandinavia might unite but southern Europe will fall into a prolonged depression. I say England because they are going to lose Scotland.
North America will be a hodgepodge of new nations, with no significant international influence. The greatest of the great power will be China. People that have hopes for India will be disappointed, this country is falling, not rising in prestige and influence. And the same will be the case for Mexico and other southern states, they simply don’t have the intelligence to ever become dominant.
This is my prediction for what will happen, and the alternative is a real world war, and then thou most certainly won’t have to fear global warming, as the dust cover from the hundreds of fired ICBM will ensure that the Earth will become quite cold.

@rphb
[I know that thou think that thy worldview is based on very strong data but until thou art willing to admit that thou might be wrong, thou will not be able to see past the dogma.]

You are not fooling me.
Which means that you play on fooling others.
FUD - fear, uncertainty, doubt.

[Sun Tzu, the art of war]
Keres attack - the art of chess.

[And do not think when I say that the Baltic will fall under Russian influence that it means that they will simply invade, something that might provoke a response. It is that they along with China will be the dominant military, economic and cultural powers in the 21st century, because as the eagle is falling, the bear and the dragon is rising.]

Russia? Economically and culturally dominant? Over Ukraine and Poland? I don't think so.

[Russia won’t have as far a reach as they had doing the cold war. Their influence is sure to reach the Baltics.]

Besides outright occupation, I don't see how Russia could get any additional influence over the Baltics.
Russia already has influence over the Baltics, it won't be allowed to have more.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' I am not trying to fool thee, I am trying to make thee see the dogmatic nature of thy own arguments. Thou art a doomsayer.

Second I did not say that Russia would dominate Poland, I explicitly said that Poland would become a buffer state. Ukraine, Belerus and the Baltic on the other hand is clearly in Russia’s interest sphere and will re-establish strong ties to Kremlin, Belerus and Ukraine are already semi-russian puppets.
[Russia already has influence over the Baltics, it won't be allowed to have more.]
Try to open thy mind to the fact that thou don’t have authority, Russia don’t need to ask anyones permission, especially in the post dollar world.

And talking about the global body that thou want the worlds nationstates to be subjugated to. Imagine for a moment that the people there don’t agree with thee, don’t share thy vision, but something that runs contrary to everything thou believe in.
The moment they have gained that level of power, what will thou do if they turn against thee? Maybe thou art not pure enough, or maybe thou just think something that is “wrong”. They are not like me, they wont try to convince thee that thou art wrong though reasonable debate, no ye have given them the power to enforce their will upon the world, so they will not hesitate to use violence against these who challenge them.

They will likely go after me and my kind first. Christians, sceptics, preppers, but that is just the beginning. If thou don’t stand up for the Rights of thine enemies, pretty soon thou will lose thy own, and then we will be together in the gulag.

Any moral system that are not Absolute, decays into nihilism. And the denial of God leads to the worship of the state.
Mankind is fallible, and because we are fallible anything we create, can fail its purpose. Humility is the most important virtue, because it is the recognition of our own fallibility and the fallibility of our fellow man. It Is the precondition to faith, because it is the recognition that we need something solid, something external to stand on.

Or as C.S. Lewis said:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

Understand?

@rphb
[Second I did not say that Russia would dominate Poland, I explicitly said that Poland would become a buffer state.]
A buffer state? Against its own will? Who and what would force Poland to be that?
Poland would likely be the first to acquire MAD and then it would not be a buffer any more.

[Ukraine, Belerus and the Baltic on the other hand is clearly in Russia’s interest sphere and will re-establish strong ties to Kremlin...]

Reestablish strong ties to Kremlin?
Who and what would force that? There wasn't such a force in January 1991, nor in August 1991. That was the whole Pskov assault division in Estonia. And 2000-3000 soviet tanks in the Ukraine on the move.

[, Belerus and Ukraine are already semi-russian puppets.]
Were.
A puppet is a head of state. There are no such heads any more.
And even less likely in the Baltics.

[Try to open thy mind to the fact that thou don’t have authority, Russia don’t need to ask anyones permission, especially in the post dollar world.]

Russia can't enforce puppets without occupation. Last time it needed a military force at 10-15% level of the native population.

To do what, besides occupation?
To make small raids to snatch local politicians or state officials?

[If thou don’t stand up for the Rights of thine enemies, pretty soon thou will lose thy own, and then we will be together in the gulag.]
Let's wait out the merge of WTO and IPCC first and then see.

[Mankind is fallible, and because we are fallible anything we create, can fail its purpose. Humility is the most important virtue, because it is the recognition of our own fallibility and the fallibility of our fellow man.]

Well, then stop worshiping industrial progress driven by the fossil fuels and big business.

["To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”]

Nothing of that is new to the peoples living between Kremlin and Berlin.
We have our own will.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' Thou keep talking about mad, art thou forgetting that if weapons of mass description keeps spreading, sooner or later they will fall into the hands of someone that have nothing to lose. The principle behind mutually assured destruction is that all actors are rational.
Another principle is that the statues que is bearable, that no power with nuclear capacities ever gets desperate. Only a great power can carry that responsibility and there is a limited number of possible great powers in the world.
Back under the height of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, where they commanded all land between the Baltic and the black sea, but as thou know from history they were screeched from both sides until there were nothing left. There is no room for a great power between Germany and Russia. I think Poland will become a buffer state, because it will have an advantage of being neutral, and it is in the great powers interest to have buffer states between them to alleviate tension.

[Let's wait out the merge of WTO and IPCC first and then see.]
I know how empires work. I am a student of history. I don’t think thou know what centralization means. Power is never created nor destroyed, it is only transferred, the more power the central body have the less power is retained locally.
Thou claim thou want democracy, but only for as long as people vote as thou want. Why not just stop being a hypocrite and admit that what thou really want is a dictatorship on thy terms.
And why is it so impossible for thee to imagine a scenario in which thou art in a position of weakness, that someone brutal and foreign imposes their will on thee?
If thou don’t accept the principle of civility, like the non-aggression principle, thou hast legitimized that thy enemy uses it against thee, the moment they gain power.

@rphb
[Thou keep talking about mad, art thou forgetting that if weapons of mass description keeps spreading, sooner or later they will fall into the hands of someone that have nothing to lose.]

So?
That would be one of the results of Russia's conflict escalation and NATO's disintegration.

Russia is not the only one to have valid security concerns.
Estonia for example does not have year-round ice free ports, because occasionally the Baltic Sea ices over. Estonia also needs a wider security zone to protect its border town Narva which has been levelled to the ground by Russia several times in the history. That is why Estonia has legitimate reasons to create a buffer zone between Narva and Vladivostok. And Vladivostok would become the backup ice-free port for Estonia.

[Only a great power can carry that responsibility and there is a limited number of possible great powers in the world.]
Times change. MAD gets cheaper.
Pretty soon even Georgia will have some MAD capabilities.
Unless there is a united NATO providing united security services.

[There is no room for a great power between Germany and Russia.]
Well, in that case either one or both Russia and Germany need to be disintegrated.

[Thou claim thou want democracy, but only for as long as people vote as thou want. Why not just stop being a hypocrite and admit that what thou really want is a dictatorship on thy terms.]
WTO is more democratic than the Eurasian Union that Russia "leads". But a hypocrite such as you can't admit that, can you?

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' I never voted for any WTO executives. I don't think the USA is particularly democratic, but people still formally choose their leaders. WTO and other international organisation consist of unelected bureaucrats that thinks they know better then us "little people".

Now if this discussion ever were legitimate thy notion that Estonia should take Vladivostok, The main Pacific's port of Russia, is so dumb that not even thou can be serious.
I have said it multiple times that Estonia is not in any position to become a great power simply due to geography. And a great power is a nation that are able to maintain an independent strategic defence policy.

Russia is not escalating conflicts, quite the opposite in fact, but I understand why thou will think that will all the war propaganda coming out of Washington, it is obvious that Trump have nowhere near any control over the neocons there yet, but it is America and their European puppets that are the aggressors.
I admit that Denmark is a puppet-state the entire European Union was created for the very purpose of making American control easier, it was never meant to serve the European people.
Estonia used to belong to Russia, (before that it was Sweden) and now it belongs to America.
In the post dollar world it will properly fall back under Russian control.

[Well, in that case either one or both Russia and Germany need to be disintegrated.]
States wont disintegrate just because thou want them too, and nationstates are remarkable resilient, even if the entire state aperatus is destroyed like what happened in Germany, a new state will just rise from the ashes around the nation.
Look at Poland, it too lost its state but the nation remained. Russia too is a nation, it already lost its empire but it is rising, whether thou want to admit it or not.

And that is the key to all of this. Accepting the world for what it is, rather then clinging to false ideals

@rphb
[Russia is not escalating conflicts, quite the opposite in fact, but I understand why thou will think that will all the war propaganda coming out of Washington, it is obvious that Trump have nowhere near any control over the neocons there yet, but it is America and their European puppets that are the aggressors. ]

You are not fooling me.
Which means you plan on fooling others.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas' Thou hast continuously shown to be denying reality so I am afraid that any further correspondence will be fruitless.

I will end with this quote from Ayn Rand:
“We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”

@rphb
If you say so.

@rphb

@NorwaySwedenDenmark ay more conservatives

@Tiny0Norway Awesome

Always nice to meet a fellow Conservative European. Especially from Scandinavia

'@rphb' Very true. Especially about Transgender people. Pumping hormones in your system doesn't change the XX or XY chromosome.

@dino-soar94

And if you happen to be an XY female or an XX, XXY, XYY, or XXYY male, things that actually do exist (and are a separate issue from gender dysmorphia)?

'@CorruptUser' Those are separate Issues and conditions. As you said, they are random deformities. But claiming to "feel" like a certain gender when you were born the other and getting surgery to try and be more like the gender you want DOESN'T entitle one to privileges, or validate their made-up mental conditions.

'@dino'-soar94 and most people don't get what xx or xy means. It is not just male or female, female is the default form in mammals, so it is female or not-female, the y triggers the "not" part, that is what makes us male. That is why despite the trannies delusions there is and can logically only be two genders. The y makes the male, end of story. I can't begin to extress how many of these trannies I have met in places like youtube that thinks that the chromosome disorder xxy (Klinefelter syndrome) is somehow proof of a third option. They simply don't get genetics, it simply makes a sterile male.

@rphb It is the SRY gene that decides if a human becomes male or not. This is usually on the Y chromosome, however it can be on the X chromosome leading to XX males or damaged leading to XY females (the Y chromosome basically just contains all maleness and one of the X chromosomes in females is basically shut off so there isn't a higher count of data (it is done randomly in cells leading to the female portion of the population being biological chimeras)). While certain parts of transexuals cause are unknown there has been research to find a different between male and female brains. It was done with slicing mice brains extremely thinly and comparing them. After finding a difference it was also found in humans and after enough transexual brains were donated to science it was found that transwomen (who were born men) were found to have female brains. While this isn't solid proof of if it is before or after treatment the change happens (being born female brain or turning into a female brain) it is a case for it (or at least the ability to change from male to female).
While I would agree over a lack of third option (at least in a reproductive sense) I can understand the idea of non-binary or genderfluid. However this might be more a rejection of stereotypes or something biological (an example being a brain in between male / female but that is just a guess). However my knowledge on that is less so I am going to take a "live and let live" approach on that.

@rphb

Which is why I oppose old people being allowed to marry.

/sarcasm

'@CorruptUser' Its true that past the reproductive age, the women's value is strongly diminished. At that age she ought to be a mother and a grandmother. Her children should take care of her and she teach them and their children the wisdom she have acquired though her life.
But while children are the primary purpose for matrimony, it is not the only reason. It is also to ensure financial security.

@rphb

There is nothing "holy" about matrimony - it's invented by man and can be changed by man.
You might just as well claim income taxation is "holy".
And no - gender is a social construct by man as well. You're thinking of sex, which is the biological part.

'@Nisse'_Hult there is no difference between sex and gender, thou only think that there is a difference. The gender roles for instance, comes from nature, they prescribe what the genders are inherently better suited as. Nothing is a true social construct, because everything that can appear to be a social construct have a deeper biological reason behind it.
There is actually significant gender dimorphism with humans, everything from bone structure, to bodymass and brain-functions are different.

And I use the word "holy" to describe the teleological "purpose" of the institution. It is essential for our civilisation to survive, and as such it is also sacred, in the form that it is one of the things that must never be violated.

Thou know of these things, Absolute evil acts, acts that are evil in themselves, due to their very nature, regardless of circumstances. These are things like theft, murder, rape and yes adulatory.
Matrimony is holy in the same way that life is holy and liberty is holy and property is holy, in that it must never be violated, that it is evil in itself to do so.

@rphb

<sarcasm>You know what. You might be right.
Women have better developed speech centers. Women are less prone to resort to violence. Women are credited with showing greater compassion in general.
We should ban the institution of using men in any leadership roles henceforth. All male kings, presidents, and CEO's need to relinquish their roles to the women around them. Households need to be led by women, as they're more inclined to put family before ego and people tend to bow up less when given instruction by a woman.</sarcasm>

So, let's start with you. Go tell your wife or girlfriend, (if you have one,) that she's in charge of you now, as you're pretty reliably scientifically proven to be inferior to her as a head of household. Her word is law. You accept that you are to be merely the facilitator of her decrees.

Or is that not what you meant at all?

'@SeanR'
women are not less prone to violence then men, they may be more compassionate, but that is because they are more emotional and less rational then a man. And I respect women, the mother is the heart of the household, the father is the brain, both organs are kind of essential.
There are examples of good female leaders, but that is because few women wants to be leaders compared to men, and because traditionally they had to work much harder to get to the top, which ensured that the few women that got there were remarkable.
But in modern time we have forgotten that, we have forgotten that most women are unsuitable to authority, so instead of them proving themselves worthy, they are carried forward because of their genitals, despite their lack of qualifications.
As an example just take Hillary Clinton or Angela Merkel. Merkel have brought doom upon Germany, luckily America was spared a similar fate.

@rphb

Your entitled to any BELIEFS you like to hold - but your not entitled to pretend they're based on facts - because they simply aren't.

Gender doesn't come from nature - that's nonsense.

Reactionary people like to CLAIM that, because they believe that the claim that something comes from nature also make it "natural" and therefore how humans must behave.
But as you just showed when you listed of "absolute evil acts" nature if full of theft, rape and murder - and yes adulatory. Animals does all those things against each other, just like humans, but that doesn't make it just and something we must do.
It only shows that if there is a god he's one evil motherfucker - but I don't think that was the point you wanted to make...

Gender roles differ amongst cultures and throughout history within cultures so they're obviously not set in stone but decided by man.

And any claim that a certain sex is better suited for certain thing is easily disproven. Name any skill you have and there are millions of women in the world who would beat you handily in any of them.
Different sexes are not better at certain things - different people are.
But just as there are strong men there are weak and there are strong women for instance - since physical strength is often a popular "proof" amongst reactionaries like yourself.

"There is actually significant gender dimorphism with humans, everything from bone structure, to bodymass and brain-functions are different"

All those things are once again connected to the physical SEX of the person - not the social gender.
And you're talking about averages of the entire sexes - within them there are HUGE variations as I just noted. Anything you can do well or any physical trait you have (exept for the reproductive organs of course) - a lot of women in the world beats you hands down, I can guarantee you.

"And I use the word "holy" to describe the teleological "purpose" of the institution. It is essential for our civilisation to survive, and as such it is also sacred, in the form that it is one of the things that must never be violated."

I guess you meant "theological"? Well religion is of course also just made up by man - there is no proof what so ever for any religious beliefs - that's why they're called "beliefs".
As I said - if you like to believe in those things it's fine but you don't get to pretend their based on any facts because they aren't.
And looking at nature once again there are several species of animals besides man who practises homosexually so if there is a god he obviously approves of the practice even if it can't lead to procreation, since he invented it.

Also - I don't know of any religion that holds "property" as holy as you claim. Jesus sure as hell didn't - that's very evident from the Bible.
Sounds more like something an American TV-evangelist would claim to defend him spending his congregations money on a new Porsche for himself.

'@Nisse'_Hult thou doth not know the word teleological? it comes from greek telos, meaning purpose, I did not mean theology which is the study of the bible, and property is a very important aspect of the bible, but that is not really relevant, because my argument is not based on it.

And the natural law is also a concept that thou should know, or if thou doth not know at least thou should google it. It does not refer to what animals do, it refers to what is objectively right and wrong, before any human judgement.

Now I do not doubt that thou can find anecdotal evidence of extreme outlines in any directions, but that does not disprove the general trend, and the high correlation there are between the genders. Now regarding gender roles. Men are the providers and the protectors. They rule society, because they build society and protects society. Any prosperous society is patriarchal, and any deviance from it spells doom.
As an example just look at Sweden, I don't know if thou art familiar with it. of what goes on in cities like Malmø, or Stockholm.
Sweden have become a matriarchy, completely feminine and irrational, and as a natural consequence, they are importing a hyper masculine culture from the middle east.
Rape and murder, once rare have become a common occurrence. And all of the privileges that Swedish women have been granted by their Eunuch men, will be stripped away by their future no nonsense Islamic overlords.

I do not like Islam, but in any battle between an Absolutist and a relativist, the Absolutist always wins, because he alone is willing to die for his principles.

Because Atheism and relativism is the belief in nothing, anything of value, even if it is evil, can overcome it.

@rphb

I gave you an argument based on logic and reason and you completely ignore it and answer with a rambling based on your beliefs and opinions.

Get it through your skull that it doesn't matter one bit what you BELIEVE is true - no one cares what you believe. You know what happens when you try to talk about your beliefs with people IRL - don't you? They're not interested and the more you talk about it the less people are.

That's because your beliefs are reactionary old beliefs that have since been disproved with rational arguments and factual proofs and normal rational people today know this and sees that you're not rational.
Which gives the impression that you might be slightly insane so people avoid you because no one wants to waste time with irrational, possibly slightly insane, people.
I guess you're still young so there's still time to change, because if you don't you'll end up living your whole life very lonely in your own delusional bubble where your beliefs are more important to you then reality, facts and meaningfull interactions with people IRL.

You're almost completely alone in your beliefs in your society not because your smarter then everyone around you - your almost completely alone because you, unlike those around you, don't base your world view on rational thinking and factual proofs. And no matter how fancy you think your writing is it won't hide the fact that there is nothing but air behind your beliefs - that's once again why they're called BELIEFS.

PS. If you're the same person who I talked to before and who wrote about having mental problems and not taking his/her medication - please follow my advice from that time and take your medication and stay off the Internet. Interact with real people in reality and learn to socialise with others on mutual terms instead of just repeating beliefs no one cares you hold and you can't prove anyway. DS.

'@Nisse'_Hult Thy post was not an argument, it was purely ad hominum attack.
What is Good does not change and is not dependent on the crowd.

@rphb

I laid out my argument in earlier posts.
Arguments you completely ignored by spouting yet more empty beliefs at me.
Seeing that you weren't responding to reason or logic at all I instead tried to warn you that you'll throw your life away and end up very lonely if you continue on this path.
There is nothing ad hominum in this - it's just a fact of life.

You may cling to your beliefs of what is "Good" all you like - when you can't rationally or logically argue for them in any way you will still only seem a bit loony to other people in a modern society.
Your willingness to believe things without any rational proof would have worked perfectly in society 300 years ago, before the enlightenment, but today - not so much.

That's my point. No attack in that - I'm only stating facts.

'@Nisse'_Hult I have no irrational beliefs, but thou continue with the ad hominum without providing with any argument.
If thy problem is that thou look empirically on how animals behave then thou hast not understood what "natural law" means. It is one of these concepts that have been firmly established by philosophers like Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, not to mention Aristotle and Plato that I felt no need to independently define it.
But natural law refers to Moral Truths that can be rationally reasoned to using deduction, not to what can be empirically observed using induction.
And as David Hume so well proved in his 1751 tract, one cannot go from an "is" to an "ought". Moral Truths cannot be observed, but that does not mean that they do not exist.

@rphb

Ok. If you think citing philosophers who's been dead for hundreds of years present a rational argument for your claim that:

"Matrimony is a holy union between one man and one women for the purpose of progeny"

then by all means go with that - I don't care what you believe and neither does anyone else.

If you prefer clinging to your empty beliefs to having any meaningful interaction with any living person then that choice is yours to make.

'@Nisse'_Hult I provided argument, thou just did not listen.
I said it was holy because it is an institution that must never be violated, just as life, liberty and property must never be violated.
And progeny is why we are here, we can talk about why we are here philosophically all we want, but the continuation of our genes is the primary main directive for all life.
So what exactly is it that thou art disputing?

@rphb So you are saying that non-Christians do not marry? Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, pagan people do not have weddings and marriages?
Our rock-and-waterfall-worshipping forefathers did not enter into formal relationships?
There is nothing inherently "holy" about marriage - it's a socio-economic contract that dictates what to do with joint possessions and inheritance (if there is offspring).

If marriage was just about having kids, old or barren people shouldn't be allowed to marry either. ;)

@GreyMinerva
So if marriage is just about possessions and inheritance, why is it only restricted to two people in Western countries?

'@GreyMinerva' Yes it is holy in the same way as life, liberty and property is holy. It is holy in the sense that it is inherently evil to violate it, that adultery, just like murder and theft, constitute a malum in se, in that it is a violation of the natural law that supersedes any human made law.
Any human made law must defer to the natural law, any law that does not, is illegitimate, and the state that issues it, tyrannical, and towards such a state it is the duty of men to rebel.

@rphb

Did you know that most animals exhibit same sex activity in the wild? Going by that "Natural law" seems to actually support homosexuality.

Edit: a Wikipedia link to back my agurement up https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

'@badwithnames14' Yes I did know that, but apparently thou doth not understand what the concept "natural law" means.
It had such a long and established tradition in philosophy that I did not think I would need to define the word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
Basically it refers to Rights that are inalienable, Objective and Absolute. Rights that can be discovered by reason the same way physically natural phenomenons can be discovered by observations.
What thou art describing is mere bestiality, which is the natural consequence when we abandon reason.
That is why one perversion follows another in a slippery slope until even the most abhorrent sins becomes socially acceptable.

@rphb I'm a bit confused by you bring up bestiality, how is two members of the same species having sex bestiality? I think you vastly misinterpreted what I was attempting to say. I was saying that same sex activity has been observed in pretty much any sexually reproducing animal; a natural 'phenomenon' discovered through observations one could say. As humans we're not much more than a big system of chemical reactions that somehow form a living thing, all that we're guaranteed is that the matter and atoms that make us can't be destroyed. We however can be destroyed and reduced to those atoms. I know this isn't what Natural Law is meant to refer to, but inalienable, objective, and absolute suddenly lose a lot of value when the axe murderer comes a knocking.

Humans gave value to these ideals. Societies in the modern world kill dissenters, how inalienable does that make the right to life ? I'm not going to debate how horrible that is, it is, and I'm glad to live in a country that follows the liberties that it does. Conscription into military service is another, where regardless of one's willingness, their life is potentially put on the line.

Anyway, back to the main topic, homosexuality. Observations of both nature and humans themselves support that it is a natural state of sexual attraction. Unlike bestiality, two adult humans are capable of consenting to sex with another adult human. Natural Law has been revised many times correct? Ethics and morality are messy things, the concept of right and wrong are abstract enough to create these endless comment chains littering the internet. This all started with you complaining about a word, a word with a legal definition attached. Marriage is a human creation, created out of many separate cultures, two guys or two girls can be legally married, regardless of religion.

As for reason, I have not abandoned it. My mind thinks in a manner geared towards a more STEM understanding of the world than a philosophical one. I like to see the world as a bunch of particles moving around creating the massive things we see in the world today. There's also the funny cases where logic and reason may fail in our understanding of the universe. It's a big universe out there, and our view points are shifting via media. Huh 4am people who is rather unreasonably typing up an argument that won't matter in the grand scheme of my life accepts that this reply is turning into a mess now because it's 4 in the freaking morning and I foolishly stayed up this late. -_-

'@badwithnames14' I should have used a better word then bestiality, as it have multiple meaning.I meant that this line of thought reduces us to mere beast.
We will take hemophilia later, we need to get through the source of values and rights first.


Values does not come from the material world, it comes from the spiritual world. They do not come from observation, they come from reason. both are natural, natural meaning external, that is something we discover, rather then something we think up.
This is a very fundamental principle, that humans DON'T give values to ideas.
That ideas have value, and that humans merely discover these values.

If men gave value to ideas, then the value of the idea would be worth no more then the man that gave it and the power he wields. If ideas don't have an external foundation, then it all just goes back to power and "might makes right".
We simply cannot, logically, give value to something that have none.

And Rights, which as I said are Absolute, can of course be violated, and it is exactly because they are Absolute that they can be violated. What is relative can always be bent, and as a result are always with time distorted into unrecognisable nonsense.
What the axe murderer does is "malum in se" its evil in itself. it is not a law that makes his actions evil, they are evil, and the law just reflects that.
That is what laws are supposed to do, to reflect reality, to reflect the Natural Law.


For thy second part thou mention consent.
I agree that consent is important in all aspect of interhuman interaction. It is always a violation to force others to something they don't want, unless it is to obey a contracts.

But it is not always sufficient to have consent. We cannot, for instance, just sign away our rights, we don't have the right to sign away our rights. And that is because they don't come from us, they don't belong to us, they belong to God.
But there is also Duties. Duties are the other side of the coin to Rights. With the fundamental rights of life, liberty and property there is also the corresponding duty to not violate others. Contracts comes from the practical aspect of Rights.
God does not guarantee our Rights, as in he does not defend them, we have to defend them ourselves. That is why we form into societies, that is why we form militias to protect our societies from outside aggression and inside transgressions. And that is why it is a duty, and not a choice, for a free man to bear arms in the defence of his country.
Women should not, and neither should the perverse and the sick, but every healthy young man should serve in the army, because that is the price of being a free man, that he have the courage and the will to defend that freedom.
So no conscription is not a violation, but to remove it, to instead entrust our defence to a professional army, an army of mercenaries, is the road to serfdom. Serfs are never allowed to bear arms, they need to be defenceless, the whims and mercy of their lord and master.
Entrust the defence of thy home to others, and disarm, and one day thou may find theeself face to face with a nasty looking “government man” insisting on jus prima noctis.
That is even worse than the axe murderer, because thou can escape from him, but there is no escape from the government, if thou allows it to gain such power.
Rights are Absolute, but they need to be defended, at that is the job for every free man.

@rphb
I'll say the following.

One, I doubt you survived that comment without being flagged. So congratulations on having your every future post bowdlerized.

Two. My position doesn't enter into it, as it's not my life.

Three. My religion doesn't enter into it, as it's not my relationship with God. And while I believe it is my responsibility to warn people when I see them going astray, it is not my place to dictate their walk with God. Free will being such a precious gift.

Four. On the whole, the human population is still on the rise, and this isn't necessarily a good thing. Granted, it's on the decline in developted countries, (at least among native-born, white as snow, 1st worlders, including Scandanavia and the US, immigrant and recent immigrant birthrates counter that,) but why are you ordering people to have kids? That's a bit like ordering them to burn coal, eat meat, or commute to work as single occupants of SUV's,

Five. it was just a few short years ago that interracial marriage, "miscegenation", was not just frowned upon, but actually, actively, outlawed. I suspect it might still be, in some dark corners of the world.

Six. Why do so many Christians have such a problem with gay marriage, but no problem at all with serial monogamy? I know of two, new testiment passages regarding the former, one takes some reading into, and the other was Paul, but Jesus spoke quite plainly on the subject of divorcing and remarrying a newer model. (Incidentally, that passage IS the one that takes some reading into, and I think the one you just referenced.) It seems that priorities are a bit out of order, there. (I'm not saying you're one, you may be very strongly in the "marriage is for life" camp, but the trend is quite pronounced.)

@SeanR I pretty much agree with this. it can be pretty weird what people focus on, but I guess that's why we have mat 23:24...

'@SeanR' I am not ordering people to have kids, I am just describing the purpose of matrimony. People can deny the Truth, but it doesn't change it.

I do not condone outbreading anymore then I condone inbreeding, both are equally detrimental to future generations, and these are all that truly matters because as I said, they are what marriage is truly all about.

Regarding serial monogamy, please understand that it is a contract. I am a minarchist, I do not think the state should be involved in much, but one of the things that it should be involved with, is the enforcement of legal contracts.
Like all contracts, there are ways to nullify the contract and there are ways to break the contract. Adultery is a breach of the contract. It is also called "Low Treason" because it is an act of treason, against a group that one owns allegiance, "the family" and such an action can destroy the family-

So I cannot overstate how serious adultery is. Rape is better, because in rape there is only one guilty part, in adultery there are two.

A second way that the contract can be annulled is if it is fruitless, as I said, it is all about progeny, so if no child have come after five years, it is safe to assume that the women barren, so she failed to deliver on part of the contract.

But the state should be involved because it cannot allow any of the two parties to simply break the contract without good cause. It is simply not good enough that they want to get divorced, if there is no gross violation, that can be proven in a court of law, they are married, till death do them part.

@rphb Why is adultery such a horrible crime, if "everything that can appear to be a social construct have a deeper biological reason behind it."? To engage in sexual intercourse with multiple partners is a way to produse as many offsprings as possible, so that the race does not die out.
(That is not to say that I belive adultery is something to engage in, I am merely playing the devils advocate here.)

@TheHogwartsJagu

I'll bite on that one. Humans are an inherently social species. Human children take twelve years before they're ready to face the world alone. Most other animals are on their feet and following along behind their mother within minutes of birth, and reared and ready to live as separate members of society in a year or two.
Those animals, such as mammals, which produce a small number of offspring at a time, place great care on those few. (Incidentally, there is also clear, age dimorphism?, too. baby animals look "cute", with big eyes and oversized heads.) Those animals, such as most fish, which produce a seeming cloud of new offspring, tend to be the ones who abandon their young, or even die shortly after spawning, leaving their young to fend for themselves from the moment they hatch.

Because humans take so long to mature into functional adults, (and twelve years is stretching it for "maturity, frankly eighteen year olds are still immature in many ways,) the child needs more care for longer. By being born into a family that has more adults around, both to protect, provide for, and guide the child, the child has a far greater chance of growing up to be a successful adult.

There is no argument that I'll accept that the father of a child is not equally responsible with the mother for the well-being of that child. It is therefor most practical and intuitive if the parents form a family unit to care for the child.

Now, there are other issues with adultery.
* Sleeping around invites the spread of STD's.
* A woman who has multiple partners can 'cheat' a prosperous man by having him care for offspring that is not his own, and that she knows, or strongly suspects is not his own. (If you care that it is your own genetics that are passed on, this can be an issue. Since, by nature, sex is a way of ensuring the survival of your line, this is not a small thing, although social constructs, such as adoption, and accepting that the shaping of the mind of a child is at least as important as the providing of the genetics of that child, lessen the significance.)
*A man who has multiple partners deprives the byblows of his full support. If he refuses to acknowledge them, and can't be forced to do so, he deprives them of all of his support.

Arguably, neither is a problem in households with plural marriage, except that there are roughly as many men as women, and forced bachelorhood, because there are not enough eligible mates, brings its own social problems.

'@TheHogwartsJagu'
It is good to ask questions. The reason why adultery is such an abhorrent crime, is because it is a form of treason.
There are two kinds of treason, High Treason and Low Treason. In all countries I know of High Treason is codified as the worst possible crime, worse then murder, and the reason is because High Treason threatens the nation as a whole.
It is high because the nation is the highest societal group one is a part of. Subsequently, the lowest societal group one can be a part of is the family, and adultery threatens the family as surely as selling state secrets to the enemy threatens the nation.
In the Bible the story of Judas exemplify the act of treason. Judas betrayed his confidant, the son of God, for thirty pieces of silver.
While this was the betrayal of a friend and not the betrayal of a lover, the same principle applies, that it was a betrayal. That is the essence of treason and that is why adultery is such abhorrent.

@rphb Ok but, the conditions of contracts are decided by people. For example, in a poly marriage, having sex with another person may not constitute adultery cause its not defined that way for that marriage. Every marriage is different. And our own attitudes about marriage (so what can even be a marriage to begin with) change with time. You can cry about the bible all you want, but marriage isnt just a Christian thing (as many people have already pointed out), so as long as the state says two people of the same sex can create a marriage contract (which is reflected by the wills of the people the government is meant to represent) then theres nothing invalid about gay marriage in that place, even if you think its stupid, or something you wouldnt want to do yourself.

'@gatchipatchi' I refer to the Bible as it is a path to Truth, there are others, like philosophy and they really should go hand in hand, and all other of the so called religions are unreflextive and elitist at best (Buddhism), literally evil at worst (Islam), with irrational tribalism somewhere in the middle (Hinduism)

But matrimony, as I have said, is a natural union, and its purpose is as basic as can be: progeny, and it is only a union between one man and one women.
A man that have a harem is not truly married to any of the women, and the womens position in it are as fragile as their beauty.
Matrimony protects the women as much as the man, it is two people that promise each other to walk though life as partners. And a pair is always and only two.

'@rphb' The truth is that there is no such thing as holy, but sure let's have it your way. You're basically saying that homosexuals wasn't part of gods plan, well why do homosexuals exist then? If god exists and god is omnipotent then surely he would be able to stop that right? I agree with you on the trans gender thing (to a certain degree), biologically they are what they were born as, but however, if they want to be something else after that then let them. Whatever they want to be (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone and it's legal) is up to them. Homosexuals do however have a purpose, there needs to be a flaw in the pattern, a difference of some sort otherwise our planet would become overpopulated way to quickly. The fact that homosexuals exist slows down the overpopulation rate. And homosexuals doesn't really hurt anyone either.

And by the way, it was a homosexual that invented the device that you're using right now, the computer. He also solved the enigma code and saved millions of people by doing that. His name was Alan Turing.

@SweDenmark
While Turing was a major contributor to the invention of the computer, and the understanding of its fundamentals, I still hold that Atanasoff should be recognized as its father.
If not Babbage.

'@SweDenmark' Homophiles have two aspects that many forgets. As it includes both the act, and the desire to act.
One can be a 6 on the Kinsey scale and still not practice homophilia, because one can live as a monk in celibacy. It is a choice to have sex, it is not something we are compelled to do. They exist because they think differently, so they can see things that others can't, thou came with examples so I don't have to.
We don't have to follow our basic urges, sin is to be a slave to them, virtue is to master them. Put another way, a sinful person is ruled by his mood, while a virtues person is able to act despite of it. As an example we can imagine a man asking himself the question "should I go to the gym today, or should I just order JFK and watch netflix"

'@rphb' Okay you're dogmatic and you seem to be religious as well so there is no point in arguing with you since you are immune to logic because of your faith, but that metaphor with KFC and the gym was the dumbest thing I've heard this month. Who the f*ck prefers KFC above training. I presume that you meant Kentucky Fried Chicken and not John F Kennedy. I personally train on a regular basis and I don't drink soft drinks and I never eat fast food because it tastes like shit and it's really unhealthy, only elk meat for me.

'@SweDenmark' Don't be presumptive about me. I am religious therefore I base my arguments on logic.
Yes I meant fastfood, and it is good that thou prefer to train over it. My point was just to exemplify two of the most common virtues and vices, namely diligence and temperance vs. gluttony and sloth.
Even an atheist should be able to recognise why virtues are better then sins.
Now atheism is inherently irrational as it denies faith while still being based on it.
The only other logically consistent position to having Faith in God is nihilism

'@rphb' Okay I respect that you are polite in this argument, that is not very common when it comes to things like this, but now you're claiming that atheism is based on faith. What? Do you seriously believe that? Atheism only uses arguments based on scientifically proven facts, whilst religions trust books written by old senile men during a time when people barely knew what science was, and the bible is almost 2000 years old. So again, what in the f*ck are you trying to say? You're not making any sense here.
And you say that you are religious and therefore base your arguments on logic, that could honestly not be any less true. Religion is completely illogical and every single corner of a religious book has some bullsh*t story in it. If you claim to be logical then take a Mensa iq test and then come back and tell me what you got. I personally scored above the top two percent and so did real-cool-cat.

And I call for backup' @real'-cool-cat Houston we have a problem, I need help trying to convince this guy that atheism isn't based on faith and that it is okay to be homosexual. Can you help me?

'@SweDenmark' Sorry, I have just been warned by the moderators (by standing up against racist and homophobic person, but being too nasty and terrible person while doing it), and in hopes of that my account will be unwarned and get my privileges back by monday, I choose to be rather quiet until that.

'@real'-cool-cat Okay, I understand. Thanks anyway.

'@SweDenmark'
1) IQ is a general score that gives an indication for ones ability to reason, it does not prove who is right as even the smartest minds can be lead astray. And it says nothing at all about how virtues one is. I applaud thee that thou hast mastered temperance and diligence, but they are also two of the easiest virtues to master, and thou seem to be struggling with hybris, which is the most serious sin. Remember humility.
2) Atheism is not about science, it is about metaphysic. Science, like biology or physics are narrow, they concern themselves with a specific field that they try to understand as well as possible. They do not pass moral judgements, and they do not try to discern meaning.

Atheism claims that there is no God, which is not scientific, the claim is not based on anything, neither on observation, nor on logic.
Absence of evidence is not evidence on absence.
The fallacious logical argument that atheist makes, is that they do not make a claim, that it is their opposition, the theist that makes a claim, that God exist, and that it is therefore the theist that have "the burden of proof".
The whole faith of Atheism rest on this one claim, that it is the other side that have the burden of proof.
But whether one make a positive or a negative claim about the Absolute is trivial. One can easily make it into a positive statement such as "everything is relative"
And philosophical tools like Occam's razor does not help either, neither side assumes more then the other.
The real deciding difference is that the theist admits that his belief is based on faith, while the atheist claims that his beliefs are based on reason, reasons, that as I have shown, does not exist.

'@rphb' Okay, one step at a time. You said a lot of things that I would like to argue with but there is one thing that I have wondered about quite a lot. Hybris, overcoming god and that. I've actually read the bible and quite early on in the book it says that God created man in his image. Wouldn't that mean that he/she wants humankind to be like God? But yet the bible contradicts itself by telling the readers that that is a sin. Could you please explain that to me? Thanks.

'@SweDenmark' It can be understood on several levels. On the most basic and practical level, hybris is a form of self flatuation, it is to have an exaggerated sense of ones own abilities which leads to one underestimating others.
As I said, all of the seven deadly sins have a very practical and empirical provable dimension, think of a general that thinks of himself as invincible.

But the part of God creating man in his image strikes at a deeper level.
The image that is often used to depict hybris is the tower of babel. The idea of all humans being united as one people, speaking one language, and united building a tower to heaven, to usurp God. It is the ultimate form of hybris and not the normal kind that most people struggle with.
And it is so critical to understand why this is bad, because the idea can seem good, that the world is united and all working together for a common goal, without being subservient to anything except the laws we make for ourselves.
But if we are only subservient to the laws that we make, where does their legitimacy comes from? The answer: power. Without God, without an eternal principle of justice, then all we have is a might makes right.
The EU cannot grant legitimacy to what Denmark does, anymore then the UN can grant legitimacy to the EU. They are increased levels of complexity that ultimately only represent greater and greater powers, not justice.
It is not good that the world is united because that means that it is also subjugated, there will always be rulers and the father away they are from the people they govern the more callous they tend to become.
The relation to God is personal, that is what makes Christendom unique. Man is created in God's imagine, as he was given the gift of reason. There is no authority between us and God, no one have a privileged position to him, not a priest, not a bishop, not even the pope.
The reason for the reformation was the decadence of the papacy, it had been lead astray then, as it is lead astray now. I am a protestant, because I reject the authority of the pope, I reject it because it is a lie, the pope was meant to be a servant, as all kings are meant to be servants. It is not the people that should serve the king. The opposite happens way to often, especially for kings that reject Christ and embraces the final sin, the sin of pride, of hybris, of self glorification.

It is the worst sin, because it is the only sin whose capacity for harm is endless.

1) Lust destroyed any relationship, as no one wants to be cheated on. But a person depraved enough, can live a life of debauchery. He destroys any oppotunity for him to ever find love, and he harms any young girl unfortunate enough to ever cross part with him, but they need to cross his part. Think of Barnie Stinson from How I met your mother.

2) Gluttony is eating too much, eating too often and eating the wrong things. It is wanting more than thou need, and it is the lack of self-restraint to hold back

3) Greed is about hording, it is to love money, to hold the accumulation of wealth as an end in itself and not as a means to something else. Buckmister Fuller famously said: “you can make money or you can make sense, the two are mutually exclusive. For an example of someone lost to purposeless wealth think of Scrooge McDuck

4) Sloth is the lack of effort, of not using ones potential, of being lazy and lethargic. Along with gluttony it is the most basic of sins.

5) Wrath is uncontrollable anger, and it is the anti-thesis of reason. It is to answer reason with violence. To be lost to wrath does not merely makes one an animal, as animals only strike out for food, or to defend themselves and their flock. To be lost to wrath is to be demonic. It is senseless, and it is evil.

6) Envy is to want what others have, and is often confused with jealousy which is the irrational fear of losing what thou hast to another. It is to covert others wife, or wealth or success instead of simply working to make theeself better. The character Antonio Salieri from the film “Amadeus” exemplify this the best.

And all of these sins are limited, they are focused on something concrete, something material. Pride is different, it is completely spiritual, and as such it is also not limited by anything.

'@rphb' You're skilled at making your points clear, so even if I think that the ideas themselves sound ridiculous you make some of them seem somewhat agreeable with which means that you're very good at making arguments. But I still don't agree with you fully and I highly doubt that you will be able to make me agree with you completely or that I will be able to make you agree with me completely, especially over the internet.

Remember that this argument started with me thinking that it's okay to be homosexual, and I still think that it's okay to be homosexual. But you don't, you were making a good point while talking about virtues and sins etc. But that doesn't have much to do with sexuality but more about morals in life.

So let's just agree to disagree until further on when this subject is brought up again, since this argument is starting to become unnecessarily drawn out and rather pointless.

'@SweDenmark' okay I will just close by saying, that my mission in life is though reason and evidence in intellectual debates to fight for the true Christendom and the Absolute Morality that follows.
Thou need to understand a lot, all of the basic, before we can get to the beginning of the argument, namely the immorality of homophilia.
It is, and this is not an opinion, but a fact, a sexual perversion. But sins are actions, they are things we choose to do. I do not condemn people for what they are, only for what they do.
To deny this fact, is to start down the slippery slope of perversions, as we have as a society done. Things once certain and sacrosanct, like gender, have become relativised, and human races, once clearly understood to be different, and respected for it, have been ignored with tragic result. I weep for the rape of Sweden, and I so wish I had the power to stop it, that my voice was loud enough to be heard.
In the face of all of the problems we have, and all of the problems that *I* have foreseen are coming, homophilia seems minor, but it is what started it, it was the first perversion.

I am not a conservative, because the conservatives have conserved nothing, not the family, not the fatherland and not God. I am a reactionary, because we need a powerful reaction against all of this corruption, all of this decadence, all of this evil.
I hope and pray that the Reset will allow people that today are asleep to see the Truth, and not be taken in by the satanic forces that seeks to enslave us.

@rphb and in the bible it says we should practice animal sacrifices and marry more than one person. I'm pretty sure that is considered animal cruelty and bigotry. Besides does what they do directly hurt you in anyway? No? I thought not.

@Niren
Now, now. Be fair. Do they even do any INdirect harm.
And since the answer is probably STILL no, it shouldn't be any of their business.

'@Niren' The bible also suggests that the earth is only six thousand years old and it has a talking snake in it. And people were forced to wander the desert for forty years because they made a cow out of gold.

And it also suggests that humans can be resurrected. And that if you throw a magic staff onto the ground then the staff will become a snake.

And it also suggests that people can become up to 800-900 years old. And it also says that if you work on Saturday then you should be stoned to death.

And a guy named Samson had super strenght and could destroy armies and level a temple with the ground. But he would lose his strenght if he cut his hair.

Yeah, I don't think that the bible (or the Koran or any other religious book) is a very trustworthy source of information.

'@Niren' I did not advocate for making homophilia illegal, I am merely trying to prove that it is immoral, there are such things as victimless crimes, because what is Good and Evil does not depend on the consequence, it is inherent in the action.
The state should not make laws for vice and virtue, it is the duty of the individual to be virtues, the state should only interfere when others Rights are being violated.

@rphb
Agreed, and I salute your courage in speaking out in the face of overwhelming opposition. Trump was the lesser of two evils, and clearly the lesser of the two is still pretty evil, but that's how the USA political system works. We had to choose between an evil war-mongering witch with bloody hands up to her armpits, and a loudmouth racist clown with bad hair. So we held our noses and chose the latter, because he seemed less likely to start WW3. Now the SJW's are having a hissy fit.

'@Redpossum'
1) loudmounth, as in someone that speaks his opinion publicly and honestly, rather then saying one thing and meaning another is a virtue.
2) racist, please define that
3) clown, someone that makes people, especially children laugh
4) bad hair, part of being a clown.

@rphb

This is overdue.
I'm sorry for jumping on you for expressing your beliefs. I disagree with much of it, but that's no different than many here.
While the content of my posts didn't raise to the level of "hitting", the tone did, and I apologize.
I fell victim to seeking affirmation from the community, and that is a side of me I don't want to ever see again.

While I still disagree with what you believe to be fact, I think we can discuss it with neither raised voices nor aspersions of character. Something that is apparently impossible with others within this board.

I came within an inch of quitting, because I thought one of the more abusive members was himself a moderator. Fortunately, I noticed he lacked that particular tag before committing to quitting. I'll give this place another chance.

One more thing. In another thread I told you you should tone down your use of 'thee', 'thou', and 'thine'. I stand by that. While it may look odd to you to use 'you' for all of those, to me, who only speaks English, it looks odd to see those particular pronouns outside of the King James Bible, or from the mouths of a singular religious sect, which, incidentally is insular, and would thus be unlikely to be found here.
When I first encountered it, I thought you were attempting to borrow the authority OF the KJV in stating your positions. I now understand that isn't so. Still, your use of these archaic modes of address stand between you and your audience. I'd recommend weaning yourself from them.

'@SeanR' I use the pronoums just to make it more clear to whom I am speaking. It is not about authority and I can't really see how it could be.
Argumentum ad populum is a popular fallacy, (pun intended). It is one of the things that don't phase me, often I don't even bother pointing it out, because it is so stupid. But there are people here that have said overtly that I am wrong simply because many others spoke out against me. I have never been part of a crowd because I instinctually think that something is wrong if others agree with me.

I appreciate that thou apologised for thy tone, it didn't bother me in the slightest, I am not even sure that I noticed, but it takes a big man to admit when he is wrong.

I would like to end with asking thee what it was we were disagreeing about, I can't see my own past comments.

@rphb
Ah. You said something inflammatory about transgenders.
I responded with a bulleted list, starting with my suspicion that your comment would probably be flagged, and you "warned" as a consequence, how it wasn't my place to interfere with others as it wasn't my life, my walk with God, etc. Implication being that it also wasn't your life, your walk with God, etc.

Basically, you said "this is wrong", and I replied with "but it's their life to live."

At no point did you say they shouldn't be allowed to do so, only that it was wrong for them to do so. I responded as if you were advocating for tough new legislation.

Yeah, one of the flaws of this system is you can only see so far back on your own posts. For more, you have to go to the thread it was posted in, and drill down.
Sometimes way down.

'@SeanR' I didn't "warn" as a response, I pressed that bottom by accident.

And if thou refer to people with gender dysphoria, that is a form of insanity, in the spectrum of Body Dismorphic Disorders. I don't see how that can be considered inflammatory, but then again I am a very Vulcan like human with very little understanding for other peoples irrational emotions.

Now condemning an action and advocating for the illegality of it is two different things.
I am a minarchist and consider the only legitimate functions of a state to be the enforcement of legal contracts and to ensure the internal and external security of the nation, though a court system a police force and an army.
Regarding Gender dysphoria and illnesses in general, they are guarded by the Hippocratic oath, that in short says that doctors should strive to help and cure and never harm and kill.
One does not help insane individuals by placating their insanity. Just think of the harm it would do to agree with an anorexic that they need to lose weight.
I don’t know what causes the illness and which cures are possibly available, but creating complicated disguises and mutilating their bodies in order to allow them to impersonate the gender they are not, does not help them in any way; and as I also said quite clearly: Lying is malum in se, tantamount to physical violence.

I am not saying that we should punish people for dressing up in costumes, Halloween for instance is a fun and innocent Holyday where people dress up, but the core of that is not to deceive people, the same way the use of sarcasm and irony is not truly lies.
But transsexuals do wish to deceive people into thinking they are something they are not. While I have only heard about this from sitcoms, and there are other ethical problems with one night stands, having had sexual relation with another man while under the impression that it was a women is a form of trickery that is borderline to rape.
It is clearly immoral to impersonate the other gender like that, but to make it illegal we need a concrete victim.
Legally of course, an impersonator should never be recognized as that which he impersonates, so a transsexual man should of course never be allowed to compete in a women’s sport, as they were created exactly because women are weaker then men.
But beyond that there is of course also the question of tricking others to do things under false pretences. And that includes basically every interpersonal activity in which gender is an issue, and even when it is not, there is also the question of the name.

Our name is given at birth it cannot be changed, we do not name ourselves. We can give ourselves nicknames, but our True Name defines us, it holds power, and authorities needs it, as a nickname is only good enough for friends, not for anything of legal ramification.
As I said, one of the three legitimate functions of the state is the enforcement of legal contract, and a legal contract needs our True Name, not just our nickname.

In short, while a “normal” pervert such as a homophile can move comfortable inside the law, as it is only his moral character that is deviant, people in the transsexual spectrum inevitably breaks the natural law in their deceit of who they really are.

PS. I don’t think any of this was inflammatory, but it is properly provocative, because I speak Truths that few dares mention.

Rufus for president

I want to issue a cautionary warning here:

People should be aware that the poster calling himself "comrade_Comrade" is doing the work of one of Putin trolls striving to undermine western societies by spreading propaganda and fomenting conflict online.
All he does is posting inflammatory links and spreading Putin-approved propaganda.

I had a discussion with him a few comics back where he completely supported Stalin's claims that his attack on Finland in 1939 was only to acquire some smaller land areas and not an all out attempt to occupy all of Finland.
His proof? Stalin originally claimed so (even if his later actions contradicted his earlier claims) so it must be true.
Now NO serious historian of course believes the word of a mass murdering dictator like Stalin, but to "comrade_Comrade" the word of Stalin is all the proof you need.

Now it wouldn't surprise me one bit if this is the version being taught to Russian school children today in the Putin approved curriculum so they learn to unquestionably trust the "dear leader" of their country.
And I'm not saying he's being paid to spread propaganda and foment dissent in this (and probably other) comments sections online - he might well be doing it for free, believing every word he writes. Or he might just like the attention. I don't know and I don't care - the consequences of his actions is still that his "work" here falls in line perfectly with the goals of the Russian effort to undermine western societies.

So everyone should be warned not to believe a word he says because he's repeatedly shown that he will spread complete lies and actively strive to corrupt discussion with the posting of completely unrelated but inflammatory links.
In other words - paid or not, the guy is still a troll that seeks to disrupt the forum and delights in it, so don't trust him and don't feed him.

@Nisse_Hult
You make a good point. The internet is not a good reference. Wikipedia is not a good reference. Youtube is not a good reference.
CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ABC, and CBS are rather poor references, when their specific politics get in the way.
"fact check" sites, likewise, have been known to bend the truth, when they didn't want to believe differently.
Random strangers on-line are not good references.

So take what you read with a grain of salt. Balance it against what you know or suspect to be true, then see if there's better information to confirm or refute it.

'@SeanR' it's not how it works. Comrade Commissar exposes Enemy of The People, wrecker and agent of world's greatest hacker (Putin hacks US elections from Medvedev's iPhone, you know), so you should just say "yes, Comrade!" and avoid the unperson. To do otherwise is thoughtcrime.

@SeanR

"The Internet" in general is a lousy source of course - since it says nothing. You can find anything on the Internet but that proves nothing.
Wikipedia is generally a good source for basic knowledge but can sometimes be biased - especially on sensitive political topics.
The US mainstream TV networks are really bad. Fox is simply right-wing propaganda and the rest are more of a mixed bag. Not overly politically skewed like Fox but they're geared towards sensationalism, not facts - spending time and resources not on what actually matters but what attract viewers and therefore drives ratings and ad revenue.
Yes, some fact checkers clearly bend the truth. But I think there are those that can be trusted - haven't read up on all of them.

No, the basis for any decent political coverage remains the serious newspapers like the New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian and other papers of record in various countries. Those anyone can and should trust and when Trump calls NYT "fake news" for not printing what he likes to hear everyone should take notice.
Because attacking the free press is a sure sign of a budding autocrat if there ever was one.

@Nisse_Hult problem is all media is bias even those that are claimed to be "reputable" simply because their articles are written by and edited by people, living in specific political climates at specific points of time, with specific political views.

the guardian for example usually touts the torie party line here in the UK as they tend to market towards those people who are usually followers of the tories.
when it comes to politics all you can do is look at the available information and try to navigate that minefield of propaganda and lies and draw your own conclusions.

@crwydryny

While technically correct that all media is biased simply because no media can (or should) report on every single thing that happens and the complete background of everything the claim that "all media is bias" mostly leads peoples thoughts in the wrong direction.
There always have to and also should be a condensation of the facts in media reporting - the point of which is to report the most relevant facts necessary for the viewer or reader to become informed about the issue without having to spend hours reading up on all the details.

But when we talk about bias we usually mean a bias that obscures the truth and deliberately misleads the reader or viewer.
And all media certainly isn't biased in that sense of the word.

While all media is constantly ACCUSED of being so by those that don't like their reporting, an honest examination will show you that not all media actually is biased in that sense of the word.

This can be seen in things like the number of times a certain paper of TV-channel has been censured by a regulating body, the number of times it's reporting has been found faulty by independent fact checkers and other media and the reputation it enjoys in the journalist and political community, for instance.

In the case of New York Times it's a so called "paper of record" and has won more Pulitzer Prices for excellence in journalism then any other news organisation in the world. It hold a very high standard.
And there are other papers of record all over the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record

The Guardian isn't quite there but it's a reputable newspaper with an honest record. It's broken a lot of major international stories the recent years and has been named "Newspaper of the Year" four times by the British Press Awards.

I haven't ever heard anyone accusing it of being a Tory mouthpiece - it's political alignment is centre-left and it's much more commonly accused of being to left-wing.
So I believe you either have it mixed up with some other paper or you're own political affiliations are so far to the left that you, personally, see the Guardian as pro-Tory?

Well yes, you of course always have to draw your own conclusions. But the point I'm making is that all media are not at all the same or equally trustworthy. There are certainly those media sources that are more trustworthy then others.

That doesn't mean that they don't too sometimes get things wrong, but they do make every effort to keep their reporting fair and true - unlike many other media who either print or run things simply because they will attract viewers, or simply because they fit the narrative they're pushing - regardless if they're actually true or not.

@SeanR, Russia has invested heavily in media for instance in RT or Russia today which throw up lies here and there.

Few year ago RT covered so called ''Children kiddnapping by goverment in Norway'' they covered riots over it, without really digging into the story, like child abuse etc and how Norway's child policies is, another thing is that the other side couldnt say anyting, cuz if the goverment says way a children was taken away from there parent, if include for example child abuse would destroy parents life. this was ofc to sway the public belive to the goverment.

Norways bigger political party (labor party) got hacked by AP29 linked to Russia.
So why did they do it?

well, former Labor party leader (Jens Stoltenberg) is todays Secretery of General, as he was against Nato in the beginning, and was more toward diplomacy with Russia, as he made a deal with Russia over where the border should be, as he was picked as Secretery of General in Nato, he may have switched a substantial amouth of the voter to more Nato friendly. and as a anti Nato (Green centralist party) on the raise, its the right time for Russia to bust up an anti Nato party popularity by hacking the biggest and closest and party by simular policies. which may lead that Norway exit Nato and more softer on Russia.

Iam sorry for my English, and this might be a bit hard to understand.

@Nisse_Hult You shouldn't accuse people of things like this without proof.