Chester Hunter
New
That's the idea, malf... each of us is responsible for what we believe and what we do with those beliefs. ;)
– to the publicly expressed acceptance of the existence of the consensual intergenerational sexuality.
.
.
.
So, these are my thoughts. What do you think about them?
That's the idea, malf... each of us is responsible for what we believe and what we do with those beliefs. ;)
With that one statement, you alienated me. Some things aren't even fringe, but perverted. There is no such thing as consensual intergenerational sexuality. Below a certain age, people are unable to truly consent. Don't believe me? Ask yourself how many pre-pubescent children voluntarily go looking for sex with adults -- ever. It's not as if there are hordes of them clamouring for it and society is doing them a great injustice by preventing them fulfilling their wants.
They can't consent, first because they don't experience sexual desire, only perhaps some natural curiosity. Left to their own devices it wouldn't even occur to them to actually seek out sex with an adult. And second, they don't have the cognitive awareness to be able to evaluate the consequences for their own psychological well-being.
There are of course those past the age of consent who might like to kid themselves that the objects of their desire actually want to be molested. To my mind (and that, I believe of everyone who isn't a paedophile), this is a twisted justification for something that is downright evil. Paedophilia can and often does ruin the lives of children, and no amount of self-justification by predators can ever excuse it.
In the UK, we have some history with a group named The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) which, while ostensibly campaigning for legalising "intergenerational sexuality" as you put it, was actually nothing more than a front for a cabal of child molesters. There are doubtless similar groups in the USA and elsewhere.
This is false. We reached out to many of the authors of the studies included on this list via email to see if they agreed with Breitbart and No Tricks Zone’s analysis. While not everyone we reached out to responded, not a single researcher that we spoke to agreed with Breitbart’s assessment, and most were shocked when we told them that their work was presented as evidence for that claim.
A skeptiko reader has asked me to post this link. It is interesting reading:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/
How do bankers convince the long suffering public to save their necks with yet another colossal bailout? By calling it a climate crisis of course. If the next banking crisis was caused by global warming, then it is not the fault of the world’s bankers.
I’m exposing the tactic not the numbers.Snopes is a very questionable site itself.
They only quote a few? I wonder why?
58 papers in 2017?
Try debunking 400.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10...cientific-papers-debunk-climate-change-alarm/
I’m exposing the tactic not the numbers.
I think we need to recognise that there is manipulative self-interest with anyone who has something to lose (or gain). If by GFC is meant global financial crisis(?) then clearly that indicates where the central banks interests lie. So their 'concern' is not about the well-being of the planet, but about losing control of an economy they benefit from. They use that threat to implement a false 'solution' ie carbon taxing. It doesn't follow that carbon taxing is the answer, but it does say to me that we have two issues here. The Climate is unstable and our human influence is/must be a part of that. And that the Global Financiers are looking to keep their strangle-hold. They are the hi-jackers, but just because the Elites now say there is a climate change crisis, doesn't mean there isn't a climate change crisis.Central banks are now openly threatening the economy with "green swan" climate events that will cause a new GFC unless carbon tax is implemented.
Watch from 5:35.
Howabout you try and keep your personal and disparaging observations out of your comments? And stick to the topic.Tactic? really? that is a bit dishonest Malf, we can all read.
Howabout you try and keep your personal and disparaging observations out of your comments? And stick to the topic.
I don't know what you mean by that term.Ironic.
Are you a mod?
Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”
The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.
The tide has been turning towards the truth, thankfully.
Do you mean as opposed to a rocker? Or a trad(itional)?Are you a mod?
The tide does indeed seem to be turning.
or maybe the pendulum swinging?