'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?

[sihhi]

taffboy gwyrdd this post of yours seems to suggest you think Icke is not anti-semitic.

Here is Icke's official unmediated statement on his own website on the David Ward affair

...

Supporting modern conspiracism in any form - even if it's of the soft 'fractional reserve banking is the enemy return to the gold standard', 'there's overwhelming evidence 9-11 was an inside job, this matters hugely' gives antisemites like Icke a sea to swim in.

taffboy gwyrdd you never responded to my simple question here

So I'm less inclined to take your assessment of Max Keiser at face value.

I freely admit to being a fan, but nonetheless he does know his subject, especially on banking fraud.

He worked on the stock market in the 80s. He is a free marketer in the sense that he supports competition, but also good regulation. He also backs causes like Sea Shepherd, UK Uncut etc. His partner, Stacey Herbert, is probably a bit more towards the traditional left.

He is a big advocate of gold and silver, especially of buying silver as a means to screw up JP Morgan via their overweighted short position.

He predicted the derivatives catastrophe at least as far back as 2005. He predicted the Iceland debacle some way ahead of time. He covers a huge range of topics I never hear discussed elsewhere, though they probably are in more niche areas of financial interest.

He has a certain flamboyant ranty style that annoys some people, but attracts others. I am in the latter. Aside from perhaps David Harvey, I have learned more about economics from him than anyone else. If you want to call out the fraud for what it is, he is invaluable.

Is all Max Keiser wants good regulation - is that it?

How will "buying silver" - assuming someone's middle-class enough to have shares/investments - help anything?

 

[sihhi]

Oh ffs, don't worry about it. I'm sorry if I sounded harsh. Look, just stick with me and you'll be alright. I'll show you the ropes, introduce you around. I'll even help you pull a bird if you like. They're easy round here.

This kind of sexist posting is unacceptable.

 

[Jazzz]

My mate has joined the anti vaccination brigade. She's not vaccinated her child. I have some pretty strong views about that.

I do hope that you respect that parents alone are responsible for the decision on whether to vaccinate or not, and that ultimately it is not anyone else's business.

 

[existentialist]

I do hope that you respect that parents alone are responsible for the decision on whether to vaccinate or not, and that ultimately it is not anyone else's business.

That wouldn't be immediately obvious from looking at your posting history on the subject. Perhaps that's only the case if they agree with you.

 

[Blagsta]

I do hope that you respect that parents alone are responsible for the decision on whether to vaccinate or not, and that ultimately it is not anyone else's business.

Selfish individualism is at the root of your politics isn't it.

 

[TruXta]

Vaccination is worthless unless the vast majority do it, so yes it is my fucking business whether parents vaccinate their kids or not.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Vaccination is worthless unless the vast majority do it, so yes it is my fucking business whether parents vaccinate their kids or not.

It isn't worthless. It's just worth less.

 

[TruXta]

It isn't worthless. It's just worth less.

OK, not absolutely worthless. But still, less vaccination means more illness means higher healthcare costs means higher taxes. So yes, it's still everyone's business.

 

[existentialist]

OK, not absolutely worthless. But still, less vaccination means more illness means higher healthcare costs means higher taxes. So yes, it's still everyone's business.

I'm not sure the best argument is even the cost one.

As members of a society, it is our social responsibility to act in ways which are in the best interests of our society. Whatever Jazzz might believe, herd immunity from disease is probably one of the most effective ways we can contribute to that.

In fact, I think it is telling that so many of the causes Jazzz espouses (even the "accidental" ones, like antisemitism) seem to be so very much about distrusting, fragmenting, and undermining society. He will no doubt argue that this is about toppling the New World Order, but I suspect it wouldn't matter what it is - if something is perceived to be in the greater social interest, Jazzz and his conspiranoid cohorts will be agin it.

 

[TruXta]

I'm not sure the best argument is even the cost one.

As members of a society, it is our social responsibility to act in ways which are in the best interests of our society. Whatever Jazzz might believe, herd immunity from disease is probably one of the most effective ways we can contribute to that.

In fact, I think it is telling that so many of the causes Jazzz espouses (even the "accidental" ones, like antisemitism) seem to be so very much about distrusting, fragmenting, and undermining society. He will no doubt argue that this is about toppling the New World Order, but I suspect it wouldn't matter what it is - if something is perceived to be in the greater social interest, Jazzz and his conspiranoid cohorts will be agin it.

Mightn't be the best - is there even such a thing as "the best argument"? - but it's something most people can instantly grok.

 

[existentialist]

Mightn't be the best - is there even such a thing as "the best argument"? - but it's something most people can instantly grok.

Maybe. I'm just wary of everything being reduced to money, because I think there are other measures of social interest/capital that are equally relevant (not to mention the risk of playing into Jazzz loony Rothschild/Jewish Banking Hegemony stuff). Perhaps that just my philosophy showing

 

[Random]

ultimately it is not anyone else's business.

If someone is acting in a harmful way towards their children because of lies, it's no one else's business? Whatever happened to the neverending search for TRUTH`?

 

[Blagsta]

The roots of jazzz's politics are in American conservatism. They're inherently individualist and anti social.

 

[andysays]

If someone is acting in a harmful way towards their children because of lies, it's no one else's business? Whatever happened to the neverending search for TRUTH`?

Rightly or wrongly, we currently allow parents to act harmfully towards their children because of lies - various forms of religious indoctrination for starters.

In various forms, this also extends to acting harmfully towards the wider public or collective good, and this vaccination phobia is a prime example of that.

Personally, I'd defend to the death Jazzz's right not to vaccinate his own kids, providing he also has the courage of his convictions and lives without any sort of collective good like, oh, I don't know, clean water, public transport or road systems, the internet.

Being a selfish, anti-social individualist is one thing, but being a hypocritical selfish, anti-social individualist is quite another...

 

[Random]

Rightly or wrongly, we currently allow parents to act harmfully towards their children because of lies - various forms of religious indoctrination for starters.

"We"?

 

[TruXta]

"We"?

"We" still allow children to be smacked in the UK.

 

[andysays]

"We"?

Yeah, we as a society.

Or are you going to argue that you or I can or should attempt to prohibit e.g. parents bringing their kids up according to their personal beliefs just because you or I don't agree with them?

 

[TruXta]

Yeah, we as a society.

Or are you going to argue that you or I can or should attempt to prohibit e.g. parents bringing their kids up according to their personal beliefs just because you or I don't agree with them?

Depends what kinda beliefs we're on about. If someone tries to bring up a bunch of cannibals, yes I'd try and prohibit that.

 

[Random]

Yeah, we as a society.

Or are you going to argue that you or I can or should attempt to prohibit e.g. parents bringing their kids up according to their personal beliefs just because you or I don't agree with them?

I reject the idea that we are some cohesive homogenous society, otherwise, as truxta points out, it leads to the ludicrous idea that "we" allow children to be hit. Or that "we" allow nuclear weapons, the sale of torture equipment and the invasion of foreign countries.

And no one's talked about "prohibiting" things. Jazz has tried to head off the idea that anyone should even take the matter up with people who've decided to believe medical lies. And I think it's equally important that anyone who's decided to harm their child based on lies should also be talked to. Unfortunately, in this atomised society, there's far too few opportunities for things like this to be discussed.

 

[andysays]

Depends what kinda beliefs we're on about. If someone tries to bring up a bunch of cannibals, yes I'd try and prohibit that.

You don't need to prohibit that - it already has been.

I suppose the question is what we might try to prevent - are we justified in attempting to prevent anything which isn't prohibited by law, for instance?

ATM, parents have the legal right to bring up children according to their religious beliefs, as long as those don't conflict with the law, e.g. FGM. Are you suggesting we'd be justified in picketing Sunday schools because we don't agree with what's being taught in them?

 

[TruXta]

You don't need to prohibit that - it already has been.

I suppose the question is what we might try to prevent - are we justified in attempting to prevent anything which isn't prohibited by law, for instance?

ATM, parents have the legal right to bring up children according to their religious beliefs, as long as those don't conflict with the law, e.g. FGM. Are you suggesting we'd be justified in picketing Sunday schools because we don't agree with what's being taught in them?

Of course we would. We already are justified and entitled to do so. People mostly don't bother, which is another issue entirely.

 

[Random]

I suppose the question is what we might try to prevent - are we justified in attempting to prevent anything which isn't prohibited by law, for instance?

I've already answered that question. Do you have a position? You seem to.

 

[andysays]

I reject the idea that we are some cohesive homogenous society, otherwise, as truxta points out, it leads to the ludicrous idea that "we" allow children to be hit. Or that "we" allow nuclear weapons, the sale of torture equipment and the invasion of foreign countries.

I also reject the idea that we are some cohesive homogenous society, or I would if anyone was suggesting such a thing.

But "we", you and I, do allow children to be hit by their parents, unless you're either involved in a campaign to have the law changed or intervene physically to prevent it any time you witness it. Allowing it isn't the same as agreeing with or condoning it - I don't agree with it, but neither do I think it's for me to physically prevent it.

Jazz has tried to head off the idea that anyone should even take the matter up with people who've decided to believe medical lies. And I think it's equally important that anyone who's decided to harm their child based on lies should also be talked to. Unfortunately, in this atomised society, there's far too few opportunities for things like this to be discussed.

I agree with this 100%. Apart from anything else, selfishly refusing to have your kids immunised, for whatever reason, doesn't just harm them, it harms my kids too, it harms all of us

 

[8ball]

...selfishly refusing to have your kids immunised, for whatever reason, doesn't just harm them, it harms my kids too, it harms all of us

Game theory. Best individual choice, risk-wise, is to be un-immunised and live in a population with herd immunity, thus avoiding the risks involved with both the disease and the immunisation.

 

[TruXta]

Game theory. Best individual choice, risk-wise, is to be un-immunised and live in a population with herd immunity, thus avoiding the risks involved with both the disease and the immunisation.

Good point that, but it only holds if there are non-negligible risks associated with immunisation. Interesting paper http://www.pnas.org/content/101/36/13391.abstract

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

I agree with this 100%. Apart from anything else, selfishly refusing to have your kids immunised, for whatever reason, doesn't just harm them, it harms my kids too, it harms all of us

<edit cos it was stupid>If you don't vaccinate your kids, it makes you a super super extreme cunt who has no right to any form of freedom or decision making IMO.

The fact is that some people CANNOT have vaccinations, for whatever reasons, they are allergic, etc etc. These people rely on others having the vaccination in order not to die.

Imagine there is a kid in the class who is allergic to vaccines (child A), and another whose idoit parents have chosen not to immunise (child B); child B will pass on whatever disease to child A therefore compromising child A.

If child A happens to die, the parents of child B should be locked up for manslaughter.

These people are cunts of the highest order. And no I do not "respect their choice". You can run this herd immunity simulator here: http://www.software3d.com/Home/Vax/Immunity.php


Here's a nice condescending video on exactly why anti-vaxxers are demonstrably cunts and idiots.



Seriously though, this video is really funny.

 

[8ball]

Good point that, but it only holds if there are non-negligible risks associated with immunisation. Interesting paper http://www.pnas.org/content/101/36/13391.abstract

It is an interesting one - thanks!

 

[Random]

But "we", you and I, do allow children to be hit by their parents, unless you're either involved in a campaign to have the law changed or intervene physically to prevent it any time you witness it. Allowing it isn't the same as agreeing with or condoning it - I don't agree with it, but neither do I think it's for me to physically prevent it.

So someone who witnesses a stabbing has "allowed" the stabbing, unless they've intervened physically?

Not sure why you keep on reverting to talk of banning and physical force. The topic I was discussing was whether a parent's choices were always "their own business".

 

[frogwoman]

Well some people choose to abuse their children in which case it's not.

 

[butchersapron]

Good point that, but it only holds if there are non-negligible risks associated with immunisation. Interesting paper http://www.pnas.org/content/101/36/13391.abstract

What if they make you gay?