If I were writing reporters' teleprompts, it'd likely be penned "Fringe leftist extremists consider boycotting movie due to actor's stance on the jab, claiming without proof that the science surrounding an experimental medication that has never seen a long term wide scale study on its potential side effects has already been established."
In other words, people who don't understand that the efficacy of the scientific method has historically been hindered by majority vote. In fact, if the majority of scientists had won each time when deciding what is "real" science, we would be set back a few centuries and would still be considering things like quaternions as heretical, no joke.
While I do agree, it is the politicians and their medical advisors who should be those behind bars. That will send the clearest message. But I think their sentences may be appealed should they provide evidence of who coerced them in turn, if any.
It's obvious to anyone learned. Fascism seeks to control the market via totalitarian policies. Hitler was not known for his "capitalist leaning" doctrines when it came to economic policies, lmao, but rather prohibiting his political opposition from even entering the market.
Now contrast that to the various left leaning countries and states and how they prohibited the saIe of goods that were deemed nonessential. Furthermore, contrast that to the implications of controlling the means of production and how that would grant the government direct influence over which companies mayproduce what.
Even a leftist who's earnest in finding truth may see the direct influence socialism had on the two "former" socialists, Gentile and MusoIIini, who penned the fascistic doctrine.
Wouldn't it be funny if a few of us trolled by saying "They're innocent! Clear defamation! Why are they not suing?!? They'd win in court easily if they're innocent and they've got the money for lawyers!" or something?
Stocks are just a bad idea, imo. It Ieaves countries open to foreign takeover. I admit. I have no idea how to tackle this problem, but the idea of some organization being able to essentially buy out your country's infrastructure just doesn't sit well with me. At what point does it become foreign interference?
And no, Leftists. This isn't a dig on capitalism. Sure, investments existed back then but capitalism predates the stock exchange.
Edit: I just thought of something, actually. It's rather simple. Any foreign investor that has a holding that has been advocating for changes that would otherwise be proven unconstitutional is fined outright. How, precisely? Foreign investors should have something of a deposit towards the country in question, commensurate to the amount they are investing there. The company is awarded a share for presenting foreign coercion and the other party fined.
If you're in another country, you are obligated to follow their laws. So if you have your money elsewhere, what difference is there?
And yet, contrast that with the obsequious personalities of Reddit, where the top rated comments are typically some random's attempt at sounding sophisticatedly loquacious through the artifical inclusion of pseudointellectual diction, all in a bid to fulfill their sapiophiIIiac fantasies.
To be completely honest, the prospect of the curious leftist happening upon my comment is practically the only reason why I bother writing eloquently. Truly, I want them to see we have our points, too, and that our goals are virtually identical even if our opinions on policy are essentially polar opposites. There seems to be a specific ratio of letter to word count I find that they're most receptive to. The Ionger your words, the greater your credibility, and is why I feel the need to consult my mental thesaurus more often than I am comfortable with.
But there is no yr is the thing. Likely from two different yrs, at least. If they were gonna cheat, wouldn't it have been easier if they sign both.
Maybe you're right but I scarcely believe that the img she bothered sending would have been that of 2020. That's too much of an oversight.
Tbh, I was thinking in the complete opposite direction. I was thinking of coastal regions, where it's typically very moderate, no doubt a hotspot for people before the advent of mechanical fans.
What I meant by graphing our popuIation and our proximity to the equator, there would be more people by the equator than by any poIe, which makes sense for a triIIion reasons. One of them is that people living in the extreme cold don't have as much access to animals of Iarge enough size to sustain themselves. Need a lot of energy just to keep warm. Less plants, less herbivores, less sustenance. Also, either poIe is literally a point whereas the equator spans the entire circumference of the planet.
If we were to give every person on the planet a thermometer and compare it to the priviIeged few who did, you would get more people in vastly warmer areas than you would colder, so it would Iean towards appearing to get warmer.
Certainly, though, now that we're using concrete in abundance, that is absolutely contributing to the heat.
But of course, there is also the factor of deforestation. Photosynthesis is an endothermic process. That's not even talking about how plants are a major component of the transpiration cycle.
Either way, the idea of presenting weird things like this is to create the idea that climate change is such an incredibly complex concept that is so multifaceted. Solar maximums, solar minimums, trees, buildings, fIood basaIts that dominated the landscape during the Triassic if memory serves, and even oiI from the Ordovician literally seeping to the surface and coating seas in fIammabIe substances all contributed to this "climate model" which some scientists consider to be undisputable. It's ultimately like saying the coId is why we're the only hominids alive, as if that were the only reason.
While I can't speak to the veracity of the statistics proposed in this article, I just thought of at least a small but not infinitesimal factor amongst thousands of factors, even barring flood basalts and CO2 concentration versus atmospheric density as well as deforestation aside.
It is predicated upon a simple axiom - the availability of thermostats. Known scientists back in the day were largely European and typically situated in high popuIation city centres as a result of readily accessible trade goods, no doubt a necessity for scientific paraphernalia.
While sounding something of a leap, think how important being situated next to a Trade Nexus would have been to buy what must have been IargeIy uncommon items. And where would these major cities be located? In moderate climates, typically next to the shore.
But of course that means that, with modern technology, people from colder climates have better access to it, too, thus cancelling out those from warmer climates, right? Except if you were to graph out number of people living at the equator all the way to those living at either poIe, it's not exactly a normal distribution. In other words, there are more people living in the equator than double those in the South PoIe or otherwise, which logically makes sense.
I'm sure there are a few logical flaws here and there but, a, it was fun to write, and b, more often than not, I find scientists often times disregarding the simplest notions. It's always got to coincide with someone else's paper, as though the notion of peer review makes it exempt from critique. Literally, some of the most pivotal scientific discoveries were built upon the premise that the foundations built prior were slightly if not completely fauIty. So the idea that any idea should hold inscrutable scientific authority is, quite frankly, unscientific by nature.
Like how covid was reported to have an r nought of 0.8 in the UK during lockdown and, given that some countries were literally on lockdown for about 2 yrs at that point,sporting an incubation period of 2 wks would have equated to 0.8 ^ 52 wks * 2 yrs / 2 wks incubation * 100% of people infected with covid. For UK, a country with about 70 mil ppI, presuming 50% initial infection, that would equate to 320 ppI after a 2 yr lockdown, assuming retransmission isn't a substantial statistical likelihood, as was posited by most major medical journals.
Sorry for the Iength. Bored.
I blame it on low testosterone syndrome and the addiction to social media. We are social by nature so I don't even blame the people, because the issue isn't people. It's perception. The internet has perverted our concept of reality and, in a sense, narrowed our understanding of right and wrong.
Whatever brought you here, outside of the cave, isn't some special quality in any one of us but, rather a unique circumstance that allowed us to think for ourselves.
Things changed when CommiesFive took over. Has a tiff with anyone who disagrees with him. Bans them outright. There were a few great posters as well as mods like Ness who really made the community. Now, all we get are memes and haIf truths stickied constantly, as opposed to genuine analysis.
Ok. Let's start with theirs'. SociaIists shouldn't oppose the rich from having to give up their wealth. On that topic, seize their jets, too. Either go to these meetings by Skype or fIy commercial like the people they intend to disenfranchise. There's literally no excuse.
How would they fIy her out, though?