Should the "Yes Men" be able to change the world?

[Julia]

A verbal stoush between basilio and cynic: may we bet on the ultimate winner?
I don't think it's really any contest. Not even fair.

 

[Calliope]

A verbal stoush between basilio and cynic: may we bet on the ultimate winner?
I don't think it's really any contest. Not even fair.

Yes , basilio is totally outclassed. As I told basilio years ago, sarcasm and ridicule are no match for common sense.

 

[cynic]

A verbal stoush between basilio and cynic: may we bet on the ultimate winner?
I don't think it's really any contest. Not even fair.

I'm not too sure how I'd fair against the maestro of all things wiki.

Am I allowed to place bets against myself?

 

[Some Dude]

What if one of the duped shareholders saw the unexpected slump and suffered a heart attack? Or worse, as has been reported from the Crash of 1929, a few traders got depressed and committed suicide? Would they be considered collateral damage en route to "a better world"? Or would the Social Media crucify the hoaxer as they did the shock jocks?

A very good point, very astute.

The harmful and misguided actions of these self deluded individuals poses a definite threat to the fabric of our society. As such, I believe it is in our best interests to take protective measures against such activism. To this end, I am of the opinion that these activists require professional assistance/guidance in addressing their innermost fears and insecurities.

Another excellent point. If people refuse to take matters seriously that can be demonstrated to have significantly harmful impact, should society at large take action?

Jeff Foxworthy penned this to explain the differences between Republicans and Democrats.
Well, we don't have those around here, but I reckon most of it applies to this context:

...

If a Liberal recognises a danger ahead, he works towards a solution.
A Greenie demands everyone stop what they're doing and listen to him talk about it.

Failing this, society will need to give serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility. Anything less will likely result in further atrocities being perpetrated against innocent entities (individual and corporate) courtesy of these mindless and self ingratiating psychopathic primates.

And unfortunately this is where we start to part ways and highlight what I find a dilemma with the precedent being suggested. Let's compare this to a related problem on a number of levels with current events. ACGW.

What was the primary driving issue that caused Abbott to win the Liberal party leadership from Turnball?

It sounds more comparable that those whom don't recognise the danger of ACGW are demanding that they be heard, despite being overwhelming listened to but rejected by those in the best position to assess, and mitigation measures be stopped.

If the opposition to ACGW and the consequences of inaction are demonstrated to be true, for which there is overwhelming scientific agreement and significant societal support for, should those whom appear deluded, insecure, obstinate, even responsible, be held to account?

So should society start giving "serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility." for those who could be considered delusional on issues that can be demonstrated in a court of law to have the potential damages that have been predicted?

Firefighting officials are concerned with the effects climate change will bring on the frequency and intensity of bushfires under even a "low global warming" scenario. A 2006 report, prepared by CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Bushfire CRC, and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, identified South Eastern Australia as one of the 3 most fire-prone areas in the world, and concluded that an increase in fire-weather risk is likely at most sites over the next several decades, including the average number of days when the Forest Fire Danger Index rating is very high or extreme. It also found that the combined frequencies of days with very high and extreme FFDI ratings are likely to increase 4-25% by 2020 and 15-70% by 2050, and that the increase in fire-weather risk is generally largest inland.

 

[Julia]

Oh god, may we please not turn this into yet another thread on global warming!
Take that argument to one of the existing threads.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Oh god, may we please not turn this into yet another thread on global warming!
Take that argument to one of the existing threads.

+1

gg

 

[Calliope]

+1

gg

+2. There is even one that caters for those suffering GW hysteria.

 

[cynic]

+2. There is even one that caters for those suffering GW hysteria.

+1

gg

Oh god, may we please not turn this into yet another thread on global warming!
Take that argument to one of the existing threads.

+3

Another excellent point. If people refuse to take matters seriously that can be demonstrated to have significantly harmful impact, should society at large take action?

This question has already been answered by earlier posts within the topical context of this thread.

...And unfortunately this is where we start to part ways and highlight what I find a dilemma with the precedent being suggested. Let's compare this to a related problem on a number of levels with current events. ACGW...

Let's not!

I share the concerns already expressed by GG, Julia and Calliope regarding the potential for this thread to be derailed into another climate change debate. We already have various other threads dedicated to such contentious issues. Please take your CC propaganda to the appropriate thread.

What was the primary driving issue that caused Abbott to win the Liberal party leadership from Turnball?

Who cares?

I fail to understand how this matter has any relevance to this thread. As stated before, there are other threads dedicated to such issues. Please desist from any further efforts at derailment and obfuscation.

It sounds more comparable that those whom don't recognise the danger of ACGW are demanding that they be heard, despite being overwhelming listened to but rejected by those in the best position to assess, and mitigation measures be stopped.

If the opposition to ACGW and the consequences of inaction are demonstrated to be true, for which there is overwhelming scientific agreement and significant societal support for, should those whom appear deluded, insecure, obstinate, even responsible, be held to account?

So should society start giving "serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility." for those who could be considered delusional on issues that can be demonstrated in a court of law to have the potential damages that have been predicted?

Wow!!! Even more subjective quotes courtesy of the wonderful world of Wiki!!! (Am I supposed to be impressed?)

Where would we be without Wiki? What would YOU be without Wiki?

Did Wiki perchance provide you with definitions for the following words: integrity, cohesion, impartiality, prejudice, hypocrisy, derailment and obfuscation ?

...I felt a dsicussion on the big picture would be too large of a topic to handle, especially on a forum, hence I try to focus on one point at a time...

For a poster whom elsewhere claims a preference for focussing on one point at a time, you've certainly proven yourself otherwise!

I would've expected (at the bare minimum) a demonstrably higher level of cohesion and logic within the responses of even the lowliest of software engineers. Perhaps I am not sufficiently "educated" to discern the underlying cause of such anomalies, or perhaps the word "educate" has been substantially redefined since my school days.

When reading your posts, Some Dude, I cannot help but wonder: Apart from scrolls of parchment, HECS debts and learning to perform "google" searches, what exactly has taxpayer subsidised, tertiary education been providing to Australians?

In summation, it would appear that the mounting of a direct challenge to my original post is beyond the humble capacity of certain members of this forum. These blatant attempts at misconstruance and derailment have not escaped my attention. Rather than availing myself of the "ignore" facility, I have chosen to take the proverbial gloves off. Any future attempts at distortion (of my expressed viewpoints) will be met with the utter contempt that they deserve.

After reading a number of recent posts from other ASFers, I can see that I am not alone in my sentiments.

 

[Calliope]

In summation, it would appear that the mounting of a direct challenge to my original post is beyond the humble capacity of certain members of this forum. These blatant attempts at misconstruance and derailment have not escaped my attention. Rather than availing myself of the "ignore" facility, I have chosen to take the proverbial gloves off. Any future attempts at distortion (of my expressed viewpoints) will be met with the utter contempt that they deserve.

After reading a number of recent posts from other ASFers, I can see that I am not alone in my sentiments.

Keep up the good work cynic.

It is ironic that a thread titled "Climate Change Hysteria" can be used as a heat-sink to hive off from other threads the most vocal of the left wing GW alarmists. Through your efforts at least two have been enticed to this thread where their longwinded fanaticism can be easily ignored.

Alarmists however have no sense of irony (or humour) and have adopted the thread with enthusiasm.

 

[pixel]

Keep up the good work cynic.

It is ironic that a thread titled "Climate Change Hysteria" can be used as a heat-sink to hive off from other threads the most vocal of the left wing GW alarmists. Through your efforts at least two have been enticed to this thread where their longwinded fanaticism can be easily ignored.

Alarmists however have no sense of irony (or humour) and have adopted the thread with enthusiasm.

+1

This inspired another "comparison" between Libs and Greens:
If a Liberal has said his piece about a subject, he stops adding to the thread.
A Greenie changes the subject and raves on ... and on ... and on ... ad nauseam.

 

[Some Dude]

This question has already been answered by earlier posts within the topical context of this thread.

I was restating the question in agreement that a good point was made with reference to the rest of my post. I apologise for that not being clearer.

Let's not!

I share the concerns already expressed by GG, Julia and Calliope regarding the potential for this thread to be derailed into another climate change debate. We already have various other threads dedicated to such contentious issues. Please take your CC propaganda to the appropriate thread.

I will continue to use AGW as a prop or example for my points i.e we all have groups of people that we believe are deluded and in that context, the problem with how we determine "serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility.", and the comparison of Liberals and Greens. I do not apologise that some people will find this an inconvenient example and I will continue to utilise it as a reference to the actual point I was making.

Feel free to continue to express your indignation

Who cares?

I fail to understand how this matter has any relevance to this thread. As stated before, there are other threads dedicated to such issues. Please desist from any further efforts at derailment and obfuscation.

Perhaps you need to go back and read the excerpt I posted, the point I asserted, and the example provided. I can do that here for your convenience.

If a Liberal recognises a danger ahead, he works towards a solution.
A Greenie demands everyone stop what they're doing and listen to him talk about it.

And unfortunately this is where we start to part ways and highlight what I find a dilemma with the precedent being suggested. Let's compare this to a related problem on a number of levels with current events. ACGW.

What was the primary driving issue that caused Abbott to win the Liberal party leadership from Turnball?

If you disagree then feel free to continue discussion with me in any manner you choose. If you object to the point being included in this thread then take it up with the original poster with whom I quoted. I will continue to reference these types of points as posters make them. If they, or you, do not want people to do so then they should not post them.

Wow!!! Even more subjective quotes courtesy of the wonderful world of Wiki!!! (Am I supposed to be impressed?)

Where would we be without Wiki? What would YOU be without Wiki?

Did Wiki perchance provide you with definitions for the following words: integrity, cohesion, impartiality, prejudice, hypocrisy, derailment and obfuscation ?

I have no desire to impress you so you don't need to worry and ask if you need to be impressed. If you want to relate any of those other words to something specific, let me know.

For a poster whom elsewhere claims a preference for focussing on one point at a time, you've certainly proven yourself otherwise!

What exactly was proven? Please be sure to construct an argument and cite my other posts politely asking people for what they found the salient point for the discussion.

If the problem was that I used the same example to respond to pixel's and your post, I do and in future will make sure I post the same text twice with only the excerpted text different. Would that be better for you?

I would've expected (at the bare minimum) a demonstrably higher level of cohesion and logic within the responses of even the lowliest of software engineers. Perhaps I am not sufficiently "educated" to discern the underlying cause of such anomalies, or perhaps the word "educate" has been substantially redefined since my school days.

Thank you for the opinion.

When reading your posts, Some Dude, I cannot help but wonder: Apart from scrolls of parchment, HECS debts and learning to perform "google" searches, what exactly has taxpayer subsidised, tertiary education been providing to Australians?

Sadly for those of you who like to focus on my education, I did not accumulate a HECS debt. I can still help you with google searches if they will help you? I do pay higher taxes from the career that I developed which also led to my masters degree which I paid for fully while working full time? I'm not sure how any of that is relevant to either the thread or the points I originally posted about, etc but feel free to continue focusing on how you find my education a discussion point

In summation, it would appear that the mounting of a direct challenge to my original post is beyond the humble capacity of certain members of this forum. These blatant attempts at misconstruance and derailment have not escaped my attention. Rather than availing myself of the "ignore" facility, I have chosen to take the proverbial gloves off. Any future attempts at distortion (of my expressed viewpoints) will be met with the utter contempt that they deserve.

I look forward to it

I hope you are now able to see that I was not attempting to derail the thread, but instead was making my point in relation to the problem with how we determine "serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility.", and the comparison of Liberals and Greens, using a topic to highlight what I believe is problematic with those points.

One request though, if you are going to accuse people of something, try to dmeonstrate it? Simply asserting your opinion does not make it so.

After reading a number of recent posts from other ASFers, I can see that I am not alone in my sentiments.

Well then lucky I am not running for president of ASF.

 

[cynic]

I was restating the question in agreement that a good point was made with reference to the rest of my post. I apologise for that not being clearer.

Why thankyou Some Dude!
Although based on what I can discern of your philosophy, I'm a little uncertain as to whether or not your agreeance is a good thing.

I will continue to use AGW as a prop or example for my points i.e we all have groups of people that we believe are deluded and in that context, the problem with how we determine "serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility.", and the comparison of Liberals and Greens. I do not apologise that some people will find this an inconvenient example and I will continue to utilise it as a reference to the actual point I was making.

Feel free to continue to express your indignation

Thankyou - I shall!

AGW might be your religion of choice but it isn't mine!
Please feel free to post your religious views in the "Religion is Crazy" thread.

Both you and I are already contributors to another thread where AGW related matters are being hotly debated. I see no value in reiterating that voluminous debate here.

Perhaps you need to go back and read the excerpt I posted, the point I asserted, and the example provided. I can do that here for your convenience.





If you disagree then feel free to continue discussion with me in any manner you choose. If you object to the point being included in this thread then take it up with the original poster with whom I quoted. I will continue to reference these types of points as posters make them. If they, or you, do not want people to do so then they should not post them.

"Divide and conquer", eh!
(Wow!! You actually did learn something useful during your years of schooling. )

I have no desire to impress you so you don't need to worry and ask if you need to be impressed. If you want to relate any of those other words to something specific, let me know.

Yes! I can see that! I am totally underwhelmed already!

What exactly was proven? Please be sure to construct an argument and cite my other posts politely asking people for what they found the salient point for the discussion.

There's really no need to reconstruct this argument/assertion as your very own posts have both constructed and proven it already! If it's unclear to you then you might need to read through it again - carefully!. If the meaning continues to prove elusive, then I recommend that you seek out the assistance of somebody adept in the exercise of basic literacy and logic.

If the problem was that I used the same example to respond to pixel's and your post, I do and in future will make sure I post the same text twice with only the excerpted text different. Would that be better for you?

Does it really matter what one does when one's goose has already been roasted?

Sadly for those of you who like to focus on my education, I did not accumulate a HECS debt. I can still help you with google searches if they will help you? I do pay higher taxes from the career that I developed which also led to my masters degree which I paid for fully while working full time? I'm not sure how any of that is relevant to either the thread or the points I originally posted about, etc but feel free to continue focusing on how you find my education a discussion point

Thanks for that Some Dude, I was simply trying to determine whether you'd actually learnt anything useful. Anyway, given the amount of practice you've been putting in, I'm certain that you're significantly more accomplished at google searching than I.

I hope you are now able to see that I was not attempting to derail the thread, but instead was making my point in relation to the problem with how we determine "serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility.", and the comparison of Liberals and Greens, using a topic to highlight what I believe is problematic with those points.

As neither the Liberals nor the Greens featured in my original post, I maintain my objection to your repeated efforts at derailment.

One request though, if you are going to accuse people of something, try to dmeonstrate it? Simply asserting your opinion does not make it so.

Why would I need to demonstrate it? You've already demonstrated it all by yourself?
(I must confess that I'd be hard pressed to surpass your own efforts in that regard!)

All the evidence of the truthfulness of this observable fact (not opinion) is contained in your posts to this thread.
Sadly, it would seem that some amongst us have been "educated" to the point of no longer being able to differentiate between right, opinion, theory, evidence, fact and wrong!

I am ever thankful that I am sufficiently uneducated as to still be cognisant of the wrongfuness of intentionally harming others.

I shall reiterate the salient points of my original post in just a few sentences. That way even the academic elite amongst us might actually understand where I am coming from:

(i) Some activists are self deluded publicity seeking egomaniacs.
(ii) There is a need for society to protect its members from the intentionally hostile actions of criminals and lunatics.
(iii) Psychotherapy and/or incarceration are amongst currently available remedies.

Is that plain enough for you "Master" Some Dude?
Or do you need to perform another google search and look up what it says in wiki before answering?

 

[Ves]

Hey cynic, can you please stop posting utter rubbish now?

Cheers

 

[IFocus]

Hey cynic, can you please stop posting utter rubbish now?

Cheers

LOL fair go if you don't have a valid argument construct its absolutely necessary to make the obligatory denigrating personalised nasty comments so back off Ves.

 

[Julia]

IFocus and Ves, there's always the option of just leaving Cynic and Some Dude to their discussion.
I have the impression they are both enjoying themselves.
Even if that's not so, they are both articulate and I, for one, am finding the exchange more stimulating than many which occur on this forum.

 

[Some Dude]

IFocus and Ves, there's always the option of just leaving Cynic and Some Dude to their discussion.
I have the impression they are both enjoying themselves.
Even if that's not so, they are both articulate and I, for one, am finding the exchange more stimulating than many which occur on this forum.

Thanks Julia, I have a thick skin so all good

 

[Calliope]

Thanks Julia, I have a thick skin so all good

Yes, you certainly have a hide like a rhinoceros, and all verbal assaults have bounced off you harmlessly. I however will just watch the joust from the sidelines.

 

[Some Dude]

Yes, you certainly have a hide like a rhinoceros, and all verbal assaults have bounced off you harmlessly. I however will just watch the joust from the sidelines.

Heh. If what people say about me is the worst thing that happens today, it will be a pretty damn good day and I will go to bed and reflect on the day with a smile

 

[Some Dude]

AGW might be your religion of choice but it isn't mine!
Please feel free to post your religious views in the "Religion is Crazy" thread.

Both you and I are already contributors to another thread where AGW related matters are being hotly debated. I see no value in reiterating that voluminous debate here.

Get used to it. I see value in my point, and unless the forum administrators indicate to me that I am in error, I will continue to utilise the example I have proffered when making my point in relation to the posts I was responding to whether you like the example or not.

"Divide and conquer", eh!
(Wow!! You actually did learn something useful during your years of schooling. )

I'm unsure what you mean here. Do you mean with reference to my initial post where I combined your points because I felt they were of a similar nature and could be addressed with the same example? Or are you referring to my response where you seemed to imply some issue with my desire to focus on an issue at a time? Or that I was addressing your opinion "who cares"? You will have to help me out here, I'm really not sure what you are inviting us to infer?

There's really no need to reconstruct this argument/assertion as your very own posts have both constructed and proven it already! If it's unclear to you then you might need to read through it again - carefully!. If the meaning continues to prove elusive, then I recommend that you seek out the assistance of somebody adept in the exercise of basic literacy and logic.

Should I use google to find that help?

One can often dismiss an argument with the same level of effort placed into making it. If you are unwilling to explain why you perceive such, then I am unwilling to accept your criticism as valid.

Does it really matter what one does when one's goose has already been roasted?

Again, I'm not really sure what you are inviting us to infer here? Perhaps you could be clearer by constructing an argument and utilise cliches less?

As neither the Liberals nor the Greens featured in my original post, I maintain my objection to your repeated efforts at derailment.

Do you acknowledge that pixel did and that I excerpted pixel as well in my post with reference to the same example i.e. AGW? If so then I believe your objection has been nullified. If not then can you explain why you believe your objection should persist? Further, I offered in my last post to separate the points for you in future discussion as you seem to be having difficulty processing the similarities so I am unsure why this is still an issue for you.

Why would I need to demonstrate it? You've already demonstrated it all by yourself?
(I must confess that I'd be hard pressed to surpass your own efforts in that regard!)

All the evidence of the truthfulness of this observable fact (not opinion) is contained in your posts to this thread.
Sadly, it would seem that some amongst us have been "educated" to the point of no longer being able to differentiate between right, opinion, theory, evidence, fact and wrong!

I am ever thankful that I am sufficiently uneducated as to still be cognisant of the wrongfuness of intentionally harming others.

Have you heard of begging the question? You need to show your work if you want to be taken seriously. As I said earlier, one can often dismiss an argument with the same level of effort placed into making it. If you are unwilling to explain why you perceive such, then I am unwilling to accept your criticism as valid.

I shall reiterate the salient points of my original post in just a few sentences. That way even the academic elite amongst us might actually understand where I am coming from:

(i) Some activists are self deluded publicity seeking egomaniacs.
(ii) There is a need for society to protect its members from the intentionally hostile actions of criminals and lunatics.
(iii) Psychotherapy and/or incarceration are amongst currently available remedies.

Is that plain enough for you "Master" Some Dude?

As flattering as the title is from you, no need for formalities, just Some Dude or just plain Dude will suffice. Though business cards with Master Dude could be amusing. Thanks for the idea! I'll be able to add them to my official ordination papers of my actual religion by The Dude. But thank you for the respect, I worked hard for my education and it is nice when people notice

Your argument was understood the first time and I am unsure why you believe that I did not understand that argument. I'll try rephrasing my initial my response. As stipulated previously, I'll also help you out by separating pixel's point.

Wouldn't you worry about unintended consequences of such actions based on the premise (i)? If it is accepted that premise (ii) is sufficient then why would society stop with those that you find qualify under premise (i)? For example, there are concepts such as AGW (and others) that are considered by the relevant scientific community and the majority of society to be factual and people identified as qualified for premise (i). Further, those concepts I am referring to are often associated with the potential to do wide scale, large, or unjustifiable i.e. premise (ii). Therefore, why would socety not be justified in the prescription nominated in conclusion (iii) towards people that can be defined as qualifying under premise (i) and (ii) with those concepts?

You can compare if you like

If the opposition to ACGW and the consequences of inaction are demonstrated to be true, for which there is overwhelming scientific agreement and significant societal support for, should those whom appear deluded, insecure, obstinate, even responsible, be held to account?

So should society start giving "serious consideration to incarceration in an appropriate mental health care/rehabilitation facility." for those who could be considered delusional on issues that can be demonstrated in a court of law to have the potential damages that have been predicted?

Or do you need to perform another google search and look up what it says in wiki before answering?

No, I find google searching for your opinion to be not reliable. I prefer to ask As for wiki, do you feel threatend by people who can reference wiki? I'm not understanding why you object to people utilising great tools to substantiate their discussion. Is that something you are not used too?

BTW, thanks for nominating as being elite, cool! I'll add that to my curriculum vitae.

 

[Calliope]

I'm afraid cynic, you may have have sown a gentle breeze but we are reaping the whirlwind. To mix metaphors, you have unleashed an unstoppable torrent. Twenty-two posts (including some very long ones) today so far, and still counting.

Does anybody know what the record is? If anybody can break it I'm sure Some Dude will. He has already vanquished basilio on verbosity.

Go for it SD.