This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Welcome to Nineteen Eighty Four

Jump to new

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
Joined
9 July 2004
Posts
25,972
Reactions
13,287
Re: Welcome to Nineteen Eighty Four.




Barcodes are so old School - we are chipping millions of you
 
wayneL said:
The ideas from this and other conspiracy theories are being aired more and more in the mainstream.

eg noticed this doozy:



It is interesting that this clown is also an AGW propagandist.
Click to expand...

And OMG she is also a "Woman", her first name is "Elizabeth" and she is a "Moon".

Would you care to connect these facts to her proposal Wayne? And of course we all know (after Heartlands little expose) that most AGW proponents are madmen and tyrants !!

And then of course I did a little search on Ms Moon and discovered that it was the special group of climate denier travellers who managed to weave a magical connection between her sci-fi writings and concern about AGW with this idea. All par for the course with a group starts with Heartlands morals.

Drop the drivel Wayne and stick to the topic you wanted to raise - whether an individual bar code for each person is a good idea.
 

The correlation between CC alarmism and totalitarian misanthropy is probably as close to 1.0 as you would ever get.

I wouldn't go too far down the Heartlands attempted irony route, lest it necessary to show how many CAGW loons are actually clinically socio/psychopathic nut jobs... like James Hansen. Need I remind you once again of some of your mob's proposed solutions for dealing with non-'believers'?
 
wayneL said:
The ideas from this and other conspiracy theories are being aired more and more in the mainstream.
Click to expand...

Just give everyone a google and facebook account at birth...
 

fall off the couch basilo? the agw position has always been about control including the use of a carbon credit system to replace money. the rfid chip is the ultimate goal in control. What is evident is the small number of agw extremists that are on the fringe of society pontificating these measures and are encountering increasing resistance to this ideology. based on your drivel posted enmasse you are obviously one of these fringe dwellers supporting such mechanisms.
 
Wayne if you actually believe a person like Jame Hanson is a "socio/psychopathetic nut job" then you will no doubt have to include the rest of the scientific community that researches this field and backs up evidence behind AGW. By your definition they must all be nut jobs.

That takes you way into the field of total and complete delusion let alone denial.

It seems clear from your comment that the Heartland trick of equating craziness and psychopathology with AGW is now a major plank in the armoury of whoever you choose to speak for.

Just plain crackers...
 

Oh come on bas, stop insulting our intelligence and cut the astonishingly transparent argumentative fallacy, and the requisite ad hom while you're at it.

It is beneath even your level of dignity.
 
Wayne why don't you just accept that calling the top climate scientist researcher in the world "a socio/psychopathic nut job" because you won't to accept his findings is completely and utterly wrong.

It is becoming clearer that you have no logical, rational or evidential basis to dispute James Hanson work (or that or thousands of other scientists). So your only recourse is to attack them personally. A la Heartland.

Pathetic.

________________________________________________________________

And with regard to the topic of this thread... I think Ms Moons idea is breathtakingly dangerous. It takes little imagination to recognize how vulnerable people would be in such a transparent society.
 

It is not a personal attack, it is an evaluation.

But if you want to talk climate change, let's take it to the proper thread. This thread is about 'big brother'.

See you there where I'll have a bit more to say about that clown sometime soon.
 
It is not a personal attack, it is an evaluation.
Click to expand...

Welcome to 1984 in 2012

.. where calling the top climate scientist in the world a "socio/psychopathic nut job" to discredit him and his work is merely "an evaluation" by a no doubt eminent psychological practitioner (of complete BS)

Delightfully twisted Wayne.
 
The whole premise was wrong. The attacks generally seem to be dumbing down of thought. That is the 1984 part that is presently occurring.

Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?... Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?... The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking-not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 5
 

You're angry.

I've insulted your High Priest.

I'm sorry. :

Back on topic now eh?
 
Climate science is a legitimate field of research. No doubt about that.

CO2 and other gasses may be warming the Earth's atmosphere. This point is controversial but plausible.

This issue does not, however, justify the "suspension of democracy" or the ridicule of independent thought.

No amount of thought, investigation, experimentation or debate will harm a cause that is just. Truth stands alone and is aided, not threatened, by such actions. That some seek to exclude such thought, investigation, experimentation and debate whilst calling for the "suspension of democracy" and a great deal of self sacrifice ought to ring some very loud alarm bells with any thinking person.

CO2 may well be a problem and climate science itself is legitimate. It's the plethora of hangers on who have attached themselves and their agendas to this issue that is the problem.
 
A valiant attempt to get back on topic, Knobby. I applaud you.

Fellas, if you must continue to insult each other on the whole climate change stuff, could you please do it on one of the many threads on that subject.

Referring to the above extract from "1984", imo although it has taken longer than Orwell predicted, we are moving inexorably toward a situation where individuals have less capacity to think for themselves and views are dictated by governments.

An example is political correctness where we must be conscious of every expression in case it might offend someone. Anyone uttering anything which someone might construe as discriminatory is jumped on.

Re the microchipping: is it such a completely impossible idea?
We microchip our pets to protect their safety if they were to be lost or stolen.
Currently we're supposed to be soon subscribing to E-Health where all our essential stats will be stored so as to be available to any treating doctor or health service.

So would a microchip really be any different?
Example: you're in an accident and don't happen to have any ID on you.
Someone runs the scanner over you and can quickly identify e.g. whether you are allergic to some form of pain relief, whom authorities should advise as to what has happened to you etc.

I get that the idea of having a chip actually physically in our body is intrusive and something we will almost certainly instinctively dislike, but wouldn't it in reality be quite sensible?
 
Julia there are good technical arguments for a microchip process for each person to carry vital information.

But my feeling is that making every person instantly accessible by a government is just too much of a risk to individual freedom.

Just consider the range of left and right wing dictatorships or even "democratic" governments we have seen in our lifetime. I think the potential for abuse of power is too high. Consider the Patriot Acts in America and the opportunity to detain people without trial or charge on suspicion of terrorism. I just wouldn't trust any government with that sort of power.
 
Well apart from the fact that governments are seeking mandatory backdoors in all online communication as I pointed out in the facebook thread, this here is the definition of terrorist act in Australia's criminal code:

the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause;
Click to expand...

Too bad we don't have a bill of rights to protect us, aye? Then again, it hasn't done a lot of good for Americans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...