2
Poiuytrew 2 points ago +2 / -0

They much prefer to use silent weapons. They would rather fight quiet wars

You basically said it, might as well post a link

"Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars" https://www.syti.net/GB/SilentWeaponsGB.html

1
Poiuytrew 1 point ago +1 / -0

Carbon emissions are a scam.

Co2 increases come after temperature increases in every core sample ever taken.

Pollution is a real problem, but isn't carbon isnt the problem.

Desertification isn't caused by climate change. It's mostly caused by poor land and animal management, and the man-made interferences to the water table and natural reservoirs.

This is a map of areas ag risk of human induced desertification: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/?cid=nrcs142p2_054004

If anyone actually wanted to solve any problems related to climate change, and make the biggest tangible impact, they start with planting trees and plants in these areas.

If you look around you can find more and better examples, but you can get the idea here: https://www.thesurvivalgardener.com/establishing-high-desert-food-forest/

Even the saharan desert is often theorized to be created, or at least contributed to by humans. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4315796/How-humans-created-Sahara-desert-8-000-years-ago.html

Again, there's better sources out there if you're interested.

Geoff Lawton is another guy worth looking up that has restored a lot of farmland.

A video called something like 'how sheep will save the world' is another good one about animal grazing and land restoration.

~'How wolves saved Yellowstone' is another on how reintroducing apex predators saved Yellowstone.

2
Poiuytrew 2 points ago +2 / -0

Elon actually saying something almost correct here.

There is no overpopulation by any sense of resources. We could easily feed, water, shelter with electricity twice the population if only money and politics were not preventing it. I'm not talking about eating soy and bugs either.

2
Poiuytrew 2 points ago +2 / -0

I hate woke culture, and have had beef with Netflix ever since they dropped their $1/DVD model and stole everyone's account balances, but I'd like to point out another element here.

Netflix laid off 150 employees because their revenue was only 7.87B instead of 7.93B. 0.75% ($60M) below target. And their value dropped $54B.

Publically traded companies are a terrible idea. The stock market is like usury 2.0.

2
Poiuytrew 2 points ago +2 / -0

Remember folks: 20% of accounts post 80% of the content.

Twitter can't verify more real accounts without incriminating themselves. They'll reveal fake accounts that were used nefariously, they'll reveal how they know an account is real... data they collected illegally... accounts of minors... who knows what they're hiding exactly, but it's for certain that twitter is not clean.

1
Poiuytrew 1 point ago +1 / -0

We haven't talked at all about spontaneous creation of organisms. So try harder at keeping your shit straight.

I've told you how you are wrong, and what mistakes you are making. I haven't simply said 'you don't know enough." I said that you don't understand evolution. That you should study how evolutionists teach evolution, so you can refute their actual claims and not just the strawman version of evolution that creationists have created.

1
Poiuytrew 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, I watched the video. Do you think any actor is committed enough to dive into asphalt, forehead first, without putting their arms up at all? Or are you saying that the whole thing is CGI?

So you've been hunting? Then you know there is not a pool of blood where the deer was standing when you shot it. That blood trails are drops and smears of blood, not buckets. You know that guy shots dont bleed much.

Unless someone was grazed on the neck, severing their jugular causing it to squirt blood directly out with every heart beat, I wouldn't expect to see any blood in the few seconds that we see each person in the video.

There's a million gore videos out there, you're more then welcome to compare...

1
Poiuytrew 1 point ago +1 / -0

I already have, thanks.

The theory of evolution is what I stated in my first comment. Beneficial genetic mutations over time. Survival of the fittest. A "non-fatal mutation" is a disadvantage. An inefficiency bodily process, a waste of calories that sort of thing. The original entity without the mutation would be at an advantage because it didnt waste energy.

It doesn't matter what you've already done, you need to do more because you dont understand.

'Survival of the fittest' is an inaccurate simplification of evolution. "Extinction of the weakest" would be more correct. You don't fail to pass your gene's along because you're not the best, you only fail if youre the worst and die before reproduction.

If only the strongest survived there would be no room for evolution and adaptation, and all genetics among a species would be homogenous. This is not the case.

You're setting a strawman and arguing against it, not against evolution as it is taught by evolutionists.

1
Poiuytrew 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ever get cut and look at the wound before it starts bleeding?

If you go deer hunting or watch some videos, you'll see how little of a blood trail, even a shot to the heart can leave.

The human heart pumps around a gallon of blood per minute. ( That's through the aorta, so each arterie in your arms/legs/etc will see less than that)

Once the heart had stopped, gravity is really the only forcing causing bleeding.

Shooter is likely using full metal jacket, not designed for maximum lethality like you would use for hunting. FMJ causes less damage and less bleeding, as the bullet does not fragment.

In short, blood doesn't work like in the movies.

1
Poiuytrew 1 point ago +1 / -0

You need to study evolution more, and not argue against the strawman non-evolutionists have set up.

Complexity is not a counterargument to evolution.

Go look up intermediary fossils on your own. It doesn't matter what you or I think they are, what matters is that you understand the theory you are arguing against.

Also, how would that intermediary from be a useful genetic advantage, anyways? A glider with bones stuck in it is just a shitty glider with extra weight and calories. Thats not an advantage.

It doesn't need to be an advantage, it just needs to be a non-fatal mutation.

1
Poiuytrew 1 point ago +1 / -0

I dont believe in evolution. I want you to make better arguments.

1
Poiuytrew 1 point ago +1 / -0

Is each step in a staircase not fully formed?

Gliding comes before flying in every evolutionary model. You're just doing mental gymnastics.

I know exactly how complex single cells are, and what is involved in optics, but overall complexity has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Your argument is 100% wrong if anything less than the modern expression of wings and eyes is not a net-negative.

Your argument is circular. Everything you postulate hinges on your preformulated belief.

1
Poiuytrew 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's the problem with almost all debates nowadays. It's always strawman vs strawman.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. – Aristotle

1
Poiuytrew 1 point ago +1 / -0

Morals do not come from god nor from a belief in god.

1
Poiuytrew 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not an evolutionist, but eyes and wings do not have to be fully developed to be useful.

Look at all the gliding reptiles, mammals, and marsupials. None of them have fully formed wings, yet find that the excess skin and supporting limbs very useful.

As for eyes, a single cell can be photoreceptive...

1
Poiuytrew 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're going to need to be more specific in your definitions of 'life's and 'spontaneously create'.

They've already created a few synthetic lifeforms.

2
Poiuytrew 2 points ago +2 / -0

When we give power to third parties...

That's not owning your own data, nor is it decentralized. That's already what we have in the current central banking system.

You're still confusing cryptocurrency and blockchain; implementations vs the underlying technology.

None of the things you cite are inherent to blockchains. All of them are possible and more probable in centralized banking.

None of your cited experiences provide any relevance to blockchains.

I never proposed that encryption makes blockchains secure. They are tamper-evident, but if you're worrying about encryption being the weak point in blockchains then cryptocurrencies are the least of your concerns, so you might want to triage a little.

Also encryption itself is almost never broken. Poor implementations lead to decryption, or computational power increases so that exhaustive bruteforcing becomes trivial on old algos. All algos have an expected EOL.

Web3 is a name brand created by polkadot. Web 3.0 is a marketing buzzword. Web 3.0 will be defined when the marketing people want to start pitching web 4.0, just like web 1.0 and 2.0.

You don't provide any alternative to the things you oppose, it's just all FUD all the time.

2
Poiuytrew 2 points ago +2 / -0

Unless you got a majority of users to do this it would probably cause more harm then good, as the people that spam the trigger words are also most likely to be the people that they want to monitor the most.

They have so much computational power that it's unlikely you'd big down their machines, and would end up just helping create their list faster.

Now if your favorite messaging client defaulted to sending those trigger words in everyone's messages, then that might be more effective camo.

In the late 90s 'jam echelon day' was a pretty big thing among the tech savy.

https://www.thing.net/~rdom/ecd/jam.html

I dont intend to try to discourage anyone, just to help you do whatever your going to do in the most thought out way.

1
Poiuytrew 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah, it'd be such a terrible thing to prevent companies from being able to access, buy and sell my data without permission and reimbursement.

Pkvi, stop getting implementation confused with underlying technology.

Do you hate language? Because language is used to enslave us. The water that gives you life is also giving life to your enemy. Surely, we should ban all water.

I'm anti BTC, ETH, XRP, and a million other projects because they are bad implementations for various reasons. A wide concept like 'decentralized identity' doesn't even necessitate a cryptocurrency, it could be a blockchain with no currency.

A decentralized blockchain is just a database that can be mathematically guaranteed to not be tampered with. No need to just some authority like say your bank or gov.

You're just hating on computers entirely. Which could be valid position if you weren't using one right now.

Please start providing meaningful commentary on specific implementations you dont like, if you would like to be more effective.

2
Poiuytrew 2 points ago +2 / -0

SARS-cov2 is a real virus, but covid is a vague set of symptoms and is 100% fake.

There was/is no SARS-cov2 pandemic.

It may seem like a pedantic difference, but this is where most arguments about the hoax stem from. People not being specific and correct in their language. If we use words deliberately, we can try to avoid all the the semantic arguments like this.

This same exact plot was attempted with swine flu, avian flu, SARS-cov, and MERS. The predictions of deaths, the demand and funding for vaccines, etc all identical to early SARS-cov2 coverage. Since there was no natural animal reservoir for the virus, the virus disappeared before a vaccine would be created.

The only difference this time is that they went back to a trick they learned with Polio and AIDS. Don't count cases by viral infection, count them by non specific symptoms, and narrow the set of symptoms after vaccine/medication rollout to trick people into thinking that its working.

2
Poiuytrew 2 points ago +2 / -0

Early covid was definitely, strategically the smartest period for TPTB, even if it was accidental. Foreign coverage of something happening in china for a couple months before it hit the news here... you'd have to be nonfunctional to not be concerned about what could be happening.

Just enough info was leaked so that the people watching really closely, conspiracy types like us, would be the first to start disseminating the fact that something is happening.

Fortunately, as soon as governments started to make mention of it the hoax was readily apparent.

Tucker and most people's problem is they still think thay countries are relevant. They're afraid of what china/russia/nk might do. Instead of seeing that 99.99% of countries are in lockstep to the bankers drums.

1
Poiuytrew 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's important to remember to think global and act local. That's what TPTB do too.

The changes you can make are in your own life, your friends, family, etc. If everyone stops the fuckery in their own town, then there won't be any place for fuckery to take foot.

Refuse to be complicit in fuckery. Don't buy that phone, dont buy those shoes, don't watch their tv/movies. Don't use their banks, take their loans, etc. Don't work for the enemy. Don't have sympathy for those that knowingly negate their own freedoms as well as yours for the sake of convenience.

There's a fuckload you can do, but sadly everyone has been tricked into thinking that their actions dont matter, or that it would be too difficult or impractical to go without some things.

Be the change you want to see. Phrases are generally cliche because they're true.

If you're sourcing your food locally from sustainable farms, and not from BlackRock megafarms, there's nothing wrong with sitting back and grilling. All in all, the less attention and energy we give the enemy the better.

1
Poiuytrew 1 point ago +2 / -1

Who gives a fuck? The whole situation is wrong POW or executed, there's no just/moral/correct/intelligent war.

Don't fall for the psyop of supporting any war.

2
Poiuytrew 2 points ago +2 / -0

It doesn't matter, because yahweh is a lower god and a liar.

Why bother with the chosen people of a piece of shit god?

We are all one and the kingdom of heaven is within you.

view more: Next ›