Obama

Yeah I guess you want to stick to your guns, even if they shoot little flags saying “bang!”

You didnt appreciate the gunpowder I gave you.

Because… what…
It would disturb the precious consensus.

Or worse… you have no use for it.

I hope its not the latter.

But then, I BEEN on camera. My personhood can easily be assertained through a brief review of this board’s history.

Whereas this K fellow… “Kropotkin.”

Because my politics depends on people having the ability for thought and taking positions they are responsible for.

Who is responsible for a method? Nobody, it already assumes a whole lot that was never discussed or consented to.

I actually take science seriously. Being a scientist and all.

Goddamn this … marketplace.

“I don’t even know why I’m on this track. Y’all niggas ain’t even on my level.”

Do you, I dunno, agree that water displacement says something about volume?

Otherwise Obama could just say “i dunno, the method just failed I guess.”

Obama. Now there is a man of method. Never in his life did he ask himself what he himself would think or decide. Other than to follow method.

Algorithms and shit…

I don’t answer to no fucking machine.

Codes.

“Live by the code.”

God fucking forbid you lived by your own capacity to reason and figure shit out.

Let something outside yourself be your measure, sure. that’s what free men do.

NOT

Fucking asshole.

But this is an interesting avenue, let’s explore it further.

Why is the mention of consensus, “scientific consensus,” such a surefire win for leftists? because, thanks to the magnificent USofA, it has become reflex to assume that ultimate authority lies in individuals. when they say consensus, scientific consensus, tey are claiming there are scientists, individualists by nature, who all agree on certain things.

Of course, this relies on people ACCEPTING that “consensus,” obeying that collective of scientists, and enver ever ever actually engaging in an act of consensus, which would require knowing what exactly it is these supposed scientists are saying and what they are basing it on and how it corresponds with the real world, with things that acutally happen or not in an observable way.

See the beauty of observability is that it relies on an observer. An individual.

“Take my word for it” is self-evidently not consensus, which is what these leftists do when they appeal to "scientific consensus. "

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJXKVOxqkWM[/youtube]

Also funny, they say scientists who question this “scientific consensus” which is actually a political consensus are working for oil companies, who have a political agenda and they do it for the money.

Tell me, dear esteemed leftist, who is paying for all the global warming science? Do they get paid, say, considerably more than scientists who question man made global warming? Not even question, submit to scientific scrutiny?

Like here’s the thing.

I am far, far, faaar more informed about foreign policy and geopolitics than any of these people here discussing it with me. But what do I tell 'em? Take my word for it? Listen to me, I know?

No. I say look it up.

Look

That

Shit

Up

Trust YOURSELF. No goddamn body else.

This view that consensus ever did anything than getting shivering people together at a fire built by someone who defied the consensus is so immensely deep below what I ever imagined even ilp to be capable of that I’m constantly laughing.

Hilarious. Carleas said “most of the time the consensus is right”.
Hahaha ha. Yes dear boy. That’s the consensus, isn’t it.

While in the meantime anyone who is actually right is fighting with his life and heart to share his hard won facts with whoever is even remotely sane. But consensus is always against new facts.

The idea always stands in ten oppositions against any living consensus. Whoever doesn’t know this really has never had the first inkling of how scientific progress is made. I am astounded by the medieval styled ignorance here.
What a fucking grand joke.

So yeah it shouldn’t surprise us then that no one except me, I who actually know that consensus is the very thing to avoid if you have a mind worth developing, has the tendency to try and read some value in your posts.

Consensus is what Facebook popularity and religious obedience is made of. Not scientific discoveries. Nor efficient geostrategic maneuvering.

Christ almighty. Speaking of another dude who went against consensus because he had some future in him.

All true insights require the development of entirely new language.

Schmucks.

DID YOU NOT KNOW THIS BEFORE???

Then what in Gods name could you have possibly known?
You just listened to the outcome of the vote. And thought. Oh I agree with that. Let’s gather and beat up that fucking cook who says the earth isn’t flat.

Disdain… Disdain disdain.

Not for you Rengel, you at least have the minerals to puke on consensus driven “thought” in one significant area. But disdain for mankind in general, the sad shivering naked apes sitting around dead ashes having consentually killed the one guy who knew how to light the fire.

Cause the means didn’t have holy names.

K: so once again I point out there is a fundamental flaw in this post…
are you aware enough to see it? Well to be technical accurate there
are two flaws with this post, but hay, who’s counting……

Look deep and you might even see it?

Kropotkin

bh:

Well here’s the thing, look, I slept it off. Here’s the thing.

You are making all this connections between things I am not saying, defending points I am not attacking, and tying it all together by use of a word in a way in which I never used it.

Now, this is not uncommon. Before I continue, I think you know this alredy, I consider you the most intelligent person I know. But fobody’s nerfect. So like I said, this is not uncommon. It happens when a theory discussion, a cold examination of thought, runs into a political agenda. Political agendas don’t care for actual things being said. I know this, I am a politician and avoiding this virus damn near defines me. Political agendas rather are tasked with replacing the existing interlocutor with the pre-defined enemy of the agenda, switching his message for the one the agenda requires be attacked, and then attacking it. Vrry frustrating.

Others, when they do this, I just ignore. Waste of my time. But you are far too valuable for me not to be bothered by it.

Whether science is consensus, the way Faust wrote it and meant it, at this point has no point of contact with the discussion we’re having.

So fuck you, I’m not playing this game anymore.

You really expect me to react positively to some shit like “I’m the only one bothers to look for value in your posts so you should agree with me?” It’s other people that lose from not noticing the sheer brilliance of my reasoning, not I.

Anyway, hope all is well, whatever the case I consider you my brother.

Uh… Thank you there, Kropotkin, for that uh… Contribution…

((God, what a fagface…))

K: I see you are a “Modern” man, way to shallow to understand the words
you write…and that is fine…and upon reflection, I have spotted
a third flaw…but it is a “naunced” one… so I won’t even include it…

sorry to wake you up… please go back to sleep…

Kropotkin

Ugh…

“Those who sacrifice intelligence for victory
wind up with neither.”
“Your Daddy”