Tippaporn

Spot on. The oligarchs see climate change as something that can be infinitely monetised. Can you hear that giant sucking sound?

I'm sure governmental plans will be idyllic. Just like everything else government does. Just curious, though. Sincerely so. Why would you be in favour of a government mandate to limit and control your movements? How do you rationalise that acceptance? And what about the next mandate? And the next? And the one after that? Because you know that this will be taken to the extreme. This idea of 15-minute cities is only a start. You can take it to the bank that these social engineering wizards have many, many more "great" ideas for how they think you should live your life. How about government mandating that you consume bugs? Or not eat meat? Or become cashless where every one of your transactions is recorded, eternally saved and sold to any entity that wants that personal info? Do you have any lines drawn in the sand? Or would you blindly follow any and all mandates? As I said, anyone who wishes to freely walk into a jail can do so. But I'd advise that one should think a bit more deeper before making such a decision, such as asking themselves the above list of questions. Else you'll find yourself in a jail with no bars and windows and open air but a jail nonetheless.

Rules for me and rules for thee. I believe that's how the game is played. But as long as we're doing our part we, at least, can claim the moral high ground. That feels satisfying and makes our efforts worth it. I'll do anything . . . eat bugs and fake meat for the rest of my life . . . I don't care. At least I can feel good about myself for having helped save the planet in my small way. <sarc>

Wow! That's exactly how I've envisioned heaven all my life!

Then it sounds like you stand for nothing except yourself. I thought this topic was about making personal sacrifices and changing the way one lives for the lofty goal of saving the planet? One needs to have values that then serve to preclude any negative personal affectations.

Perhaps we're reading it differently. My reading of it took Elad's response in the context of save the frogs comment. "Posters critical of science re spirituality" to "of course physics works." But I'm willing to take your word for it and perhaps my reading was wrong. Although I would have never come to the same interpretation of the exchange as you did. And I still don't think your interpretation is what Elad was getting at. Maybe it's best to have @Elad elaborate and we can shake hands again.

But what about your values? Do your values kick in only when they personally affect you?

Inconvenient facts.

I thought you asked for examples of the next "lockdowns?" You were given a few. Granted, they weren't identical to Covid lockdowns but the flavour is all the same. Restrictions and controlling the aspects of one's life. So what to do? Dismiss them as they're not high on your list! Brilliant way of not having to answer when evidence is given.

But . . . but . . . but they're not wrong wrong. It may seem to be wrong but it's not wrong at all. At least not that kind of wrong. Wrong to an extent maybe but not totally wrong. The twisted logic used to explain that wrong is not wrong is awesome to behold.

The writing is all over the wall. One just needs to read it. One can, however, choose to ignore it. And pretend that the people seeing what they clearly see are making it all up. Don't trust your lyin' eyes would then be the advice given by those who can't see the obvious.

I'm not quite in favour of social engineering by some of the worst qualified people in the world who want to control every aspect of my life. But hey, that's just me. Anyone who wants to freely walk into a jail cell is free to do so. I'd think a bit deeper before making that choice. Watch for the multitude of unintended consequences soon to develop. All bad ideas produce one guaranteed result . . . problems. Lots and lots of them.

How does one discuss ludicrous ideas in a civil, open and honest manner? "Are you in favour of restricting your freedoms in order to deal with a fictitious problem?" What's to discuss? Except perhaps how to put an end to the madness which seems to afflict so many.

Its just a common joke among scientists. Of course physics works, you only have to look at all the technology around you to know that. Just because one points out science's self-imposed limitations doesn't mean that they reject physics. The joke employs fallacious logic. The conclusion doesn't follow the premise. Which doesn't reflect well on those scientists who laugh at the joke since they obviously accept the fallacious logic as valid. They show themselves to be quite stupid in this case. And if the fallacious logic of the joke is beyond their understanding then I shudder to think of what else is beyond their comprehension.

Listen to the sound of my voice, Amy. Block out everything and empty your head. Listen only to the delightful nonsense I will fill your brain with. You will be happy. You will be sad. You will know everything but know nothing. And you will be at peace and one with the God-fountainhead-eternal-bliss of all that is in the universe and beyond. Beyond God even. Your mind will be empty yet overflowing. All will be you and you will be all and all will be yours. Trust in me only and do not listen to the voices of reason here for they will tempt you into a sanity filled world not of your choosing. Choose not what you will but only what I will for you. All for you. Only for you. Take my wrinkled and leathery hand and follow me. Meld with me. Orgasm awaits you!!! I am the Cowboy. You are the Cowgirl. We will ride each other into the sunset of stars as they fall over the edge of the universe. Outta sight and outta mind, forgotten forever. Until you awake in the land of the forever moons.

I'll bet your ar$e is still sore from the whoopin' your mum must have given you. My mum once experimented with sticking her head in a hot oven. Her hair did eventually grow back. Science is a dangerous thing. I'm actually fearful of these science-minded posters. They're mad, I tell ya. You never can tell when they'll decide to go nuclear. The religious types aren't much to worry about for me. Damn me to hell but what the hey? I live in Thailand so I like it hot.

Ever hear about mind over matter? Well, truth be told mind creates matter. But I can tell you're not ready to hear the how and why. Just to note. The emoticon is applicable to only the last sentence above. I'm quite serious about the others.

One of the go-to, automatic-knee jerk assumptions by the science-minded is to accuse me of not understanding what science is, or not understanding the scientific method. I guess the assumption is due to the idea that if I don't view the world strictly through the lens of scientific belief then it must be because I don't understand science. Or something like that. I dunno. You'll have to explain to me how the idea popped into your head that I'm not yet able to wrap my head around what science is and what other thoughts produced that thought. But it's something I'm accused of again and again. My dear Fat is a type of crazy. I'm well aware of what science and the scientific method is. I was a science-minded guy once, too. As a youth I almost burned down our family home with a bunsen burner whilst performing a chemistry experiment. I was lucky to get out alive. Fortunately no one in my family was home at the time and I was able to dispose of all of the evidence (except the smell) before my parents returned. I claimed ignorance about the burnt smell and it worked! My dad and mum fell for it.

I denote a contradiction gleaned from your above story. ". . . and I don't like violence. " "and making love in the hotel room . . . " On the one hand you don't believe in violence. But, on the other hand you believe in making violent love. Don't worry. You'll get used to my odd sense of humour sooner rather than later.

Thanks for being right gracious, Woof. It's much appreciated. And yes, we are all on the same side. The dark side.

Didn't we used to have a welcome shingle to hang out for newbies? Anyways, a formal welcome to Amy! In lieu of the welcome shingle this will have to suffice: Oh, I did find it after all! Someone obviously didn't put it back where it belongs.

Hi Amy! [wink, wink] Good to see you drift over here from another reality [forum]. No coincidence there. All by design. See, folks, other realities do exist! Amy is our latest evidence. Proof positive! Since you're new here (but old elsewhere - we were just recently talking about the paradox of simultaneous time) just an FYI for ya. Rule No. 1: BYO stimulants. No selling going on around here. Scout's honour!

You're crazy? When was the last time you visited your shrink? You know I'm joking. Thanks for sharing. Nice to know in case one day my source for mushrooms gets busted or something. Your friendly neighborhood cowboy, Tippers

Sorry, Woof. I was out of line with my response. I read you wrong.

Nothing is beyond criticism. If I may make an assessment I would say that the seeming dilemma the science-minded here have is that it has to be one or the other. It's either science or spirituality - or whatever other meaningless label one wants to apply to subjective reality. The science-minded cannot accept unscientific ideas and assume that if one doesn't adhere strictly to scientific principles then they conclude, erroneously, that those folk are anti-science. Rubbish. The posters here coexist with both science and un-science (I just made up a new word). There's a place in this world, an important place, for both. Science-minded folks appear to believe that it's gotta be science ONLY. Again, rubbish.