This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):
4 submissions to pseudoscience
3 submissions to science
2 submissions to whatever
2 submissions to DelSol
1 submissions to gaming
This user has so far shared a total of 12 links, started a total of 4 discussions and submitted a total of 46 comments.
Submissions: This user has upvoted 15 and downvoted 11 submissions.
Comments: This user has upvoted 126 and downvoted 14 comments.
5 highest rated submissions:
"Climate change is a deliberate hoax by the UN to reforge the world in the image of Marx.", submitted: 7/29/2015 5:45:50 PM, 30 points (+39|-9)
"Climate change is a deliberate hoax." A rebuttal., submitted: 7/29/2015 5:55:23 PM, 18 points (+28|-10)
Tim Minchin's Storm, submitted: 7/26/2015 10:55:32 PM, 13 points (+13|-0)
Electromagnetic radiation: People need to work on their bullshit detection, submitted: 7/26/2015 5:07:28 AM, 10 points (+12|-2)
No Virginia, the government isn't making those rainbows., submitted: 7/26/2015 5:35:20 PM, 7 points (+8|-1)
5 lowest rated submissions:
"Climate change is a deliberate hoax." A rebuttal., submitted: 7/29/2015 5:55:43 PM, 0 points (+2|-2)
Welcome to /v/DelSol!, submitted: 6/13/2015 2:53:41 AM, 1 points (+1|-0)
Probably my favorite Del Sol album., submitted: 7/8/2015 3:31:38 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)
Join us over at /v/pseudoscience!, submitted: 7/26/2015 5:05:13 AM, 1 points (+1|-0)
HAARP doesn't cause rainbows. [X-post from v/pseudoscience], submitted: 7/26/2015 5:55:16 PM, 1 points (+1|-0)
3 highest rated comments:
gudo 0 points 38 points 38 points (+38|-0) ago
Inside his home, detectives discovered more than 1,200 guns, scopes, 6.5 tons of ammunition, bows and arrows, knives, machetes and $230,000 in cash after he was found on Friday.
What did he do for a living? I would love to have that much disposable income.
They also located eight of the 14 vehicles stashed around Los Angeles registered to the man, including an SUV designed to drive underwater.
gudo 2 points 16 points 18 points (+18|-2) ago
I can summarize the whole article with a quote. It reads: " It would appear that the entrenched prevalent ideology of the UN has found a new way to fundamentally transform the world with the visage of Marx." To support this claim, the article quotes from a UN official, saying things like:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” She continued: “That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”
The article quotes this source here.. I'd like to encourage you to read both the OPs article, and it's source.
The best way to counter these types of "climate change is all about imposing global communism" claims is to show that climate change is in fact a real thing. Then all the various government responses make sense. But I'm not even going to go there. Suppose climate change really is a hoax. To "transform the world with the visage of Marx"
Communism and Capitalism had their big show down in the cold war. The results were conclusive. The other large country with a communist economy is China, and they've had to adopt more and more capitalist policies to keep their economy afloat and competitive. Communism simply can't compete in the real world with capitalism. This is because communist economies are extremely inefficient.
Consider, the Soviet Union was more than willing to make use of massive amounts of forced labor and even send cosmonauts on suicide misssions to compete with the United States. And despite the United States being "bogged down" with pesky things like occupational safety standards, high wages, and social security, the Soviet Union couldn't keep up. Millions of Soviets died and the whole system collapsed so far, that they traded nuclear submarines for Pepsi products. PEPSI PRODUCTS!
The changes that climate change scientists want to make to the global economy are all about making the economy more efficient, using fewer resources per capita, and putting out less waste. Some bizarre form global communism would run directly counter to those goals.
And besides, using things techniques like rising emissions standards and carbon "cap and trade" policies are a stupid way for governments to take over capitalism. They could just directly assume control of the business. It's called nationalization and many countries around the world have done it. If you're some massive global government conspiracy to assume control of the world's economy and implement global communism, why go through a huge dog and pony show? Just, why?
What really gets my goat is there's no attempt to defend or prove the assertions. You can't just assert something that makes so little sense and leave it at that. To paraphrase a famous critical thinker, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this claim offers not even ordinary evidence for it's extraordinary claims.
gudo 0 points 12 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago
Not sure, but I bet they can find a use for the $200,000 that they found.
3 lowest rated comments:
gudo 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago
If you add in the inflation of the stock market and put those 2 on an overall inflation scale would you then not see hyperinflation?
I think you might be confused about some terms. Inflation describes a decrease in the value of a currency. If the inflation over a year is 3%, it means that a dollar at the start of the year is only worth $0.97 at the end. This happens economy wide, there is no inflation that happens only in the stock market. That dollar will be worth $0.97 regardless of if you put it in stocks or bonds or a savings account, or under your mattress.
What happens on the stock market is like interest (not exactly though). With interest, if you borrow $100 from me, and I ask for 4% interest, that means you'd pay back $104. (This is a huge oversimplification, You can play around with an interest calculator to get a better idea.) This is how lenders protect themselves from that inflation. So long as the interest rate is higher than the inflation, the lender gains value or "makes money" In the case above, with 3% interest and 4% inflation, the lender had a net gain in value of 1%. (As an aside, the inflation rate helps you as a borrower a bit. Inflation means that while you're paying back a loan, the value of the payments is less as time goes on, even if the dollar amount stays the same.)
Money that you put in the stock market can (kind of) gain interest, since it's (sort of) like you're lending money to someone else. The same rules apply as with bank loans. So long as the gains in your stock choices outpace inflation, you've earned value or "made money." The problem happens when the returns on the stock market are in negatives, then you lose value from that, AND from inflation.
gudo 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago
I was going for something along the lines that the idea of spontaneously appearing metal oxides is just plain dumb. Any such material would have to be somehow physically introduced.
"are there metal oxides in you to contaminate you in the first place"?
Absolutely. It's difficult to talk about though, because the term "metal oxide" is just so vauge. It identifies a specific type of compound, but there are just so many metals and many of them have multiple forms. For example, Lead(II) Oxide (PbO) or Lead(IV) Oxide (PbO2).
A very broad range of metal oxides are used in makeup and cosmetics for example. I would suspect that one thing being tested for when cosmetics get tested on animals is the toxicity of previously untested metal oxides, among other things. Metal oxides are frequently used in industrial environments. A few days ago at work, I got a face-full of Iron oxide (in the form of rust) and I'm sure I ingested at least some.