I see, some more mockery.
Considering your only evidence is that everything presented actually is described or proves your theory, the same response the proponents of the listed conspiracy theories use, what do you expect? If you don't want your ideas seen on the same level as Truthers and Birthers try new talking points.
Better yet, just address the questions I posed to you regarding your conspiracy theory. I opened the door for you to prove me wrong by asking for specific details, yet you ignore that and respond only to the stuff that doesn't require substance. See my posts are a mix trying to have some fun (and you told me to relax) and making serious attempts at addressing your comments with questions that allow you to address the reasons I have for not taking your theory serious.
Water flouridation as well?
This is a perfect example. I asked for specific details on microwave obsolescence. That was ignored and you seriously introduced a new conspiracy in response to what you stated to believe is mockery.
And I was referring to the current anti-GMO stuff.
That's apparently for our health, and not the disposal of a noxious by-product. Yet, I know my rheumatoid arthritis symptoms cleared up when I stopped drinking from the water supply, and my teeth are still in very good shape.
Unintended consequences or purposely poisoning the water supply?
I was thinking back to how you stated that capitalism created the impetus for your recycling.
You mean where I did it because I collected enough money to buy the next big toy as a kid? What would you call that? It wasn't out of some form of environmentalism or betterment of mankind. It definitely wasn't for any definition of planet. The town I grew up in still doesn't have a recycling pick up program.
If it has to be subsidised, then the collector is not engaging in a purely capitalist venture.
Sometimes governments decide a good idea should be done by everyone. Seatbelts, airbags, smart meters, recycling, etc. It's all stuff introduced by capitalism and that appeals to certain areas of the market, but government decides we should all do it, and the only way to guarantee 100% market saturation (something they deem illegal otherwise) is by regulation.
As far as I know, only recycling of metals makes good business sense.
Then why can you still get 5 cents back on glass bottles from the bottling plant? That's a concept as old as the milk man.
It would be naive to think that there is only one model for a good bottom line.
Right, which is why competing products have many differences. And I'm not denying that there are crooked business men out there trying to play the short game and swindle people, but as a vast industry-wide conspiracy it sounds too complicated to pull off.
How about deliberately making products look ugly? Would that be good for the bottom line?
Beauty, or ugly, is subjective. You prove it right here.
Apparently it can be. Home brand supermarket products are made to have the cheap look, to attract a certain demographic.
Do they buy it because they think it is ugly (and are they kin to Oscar the a Grouch?) or because what you think is ugly they think looks good?
Hehe, turns out that you're probably talking to the wrong person on this one. Picture Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon to know where this poor soul is at.
Climate change killed someone you loved and you're now mentally unstable?
Gotta question the whole way through the process though.
There's questioning to say, this is a step to achieve something, now how do we make it better? And there is, well this isn't the end all, be all solution I want, so let's call it an overall failure. You seem to lean heavily toward the idea that technological progress isn't progress at all. Hybrid technology is a step toward full electric. And that isn't even the only alternative being researched and developed for locomotive technology.
The same goes for home energy production. Does coal have issues? Yes. Natural gas? Yes. Wind? Solar? Nuclear? Hydroelectric? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. But are there different situations where each might be the best option until we find an overall better solution? Yes. Each is a step toward something better. None are proven to be completely ineffective, so they shouldn't be written off.
Yesterday I read about a possible breakthrough in nuclear fusion. Imagine if those scientists gave the whole thing up as useless when they couldn't reach their end goal. No, instead they gained more knowledge by getting closer to the goal step by step, learning as they went. Now we may be at a turning point, where we could begin to see a possible clean energy in our future.
I thought that this was a discussion, but it seems more like you are accusing me of preaching, via preaching.
I'm just trying to explain that we are being smarter in our good deeds, but it can't just happen overnight and if no one participates in the goods produced by the learning process we will never reach the degree of "smart" you would find acceptable.
Considering what I was doing when I typed that, I was relaxed. Kind of had to be. Don't want to blow an O-ring.
I'm more than happy if you get me all turned around on my "wayward" thinking. Surely we can talk about ideas and perceptions without bringing down the hammer at so many junctures.
I'm asking questions you ignore and try to point out what I see as fallacies in your logic. How is that bringing down the hammer?
Look, men have not been good stewards of nature. No one denies that. But we have found better ways. Sometimes those ways have their own problems, so we try to fix it. We don't have all the answers, but that is no reason to claim its a failure or indicate that maybe the extinction of humans is the best option. You don't kick a kid out of school for failing to get all the answers right on a test, do you? No. You credit his success and hope he tries to improve on his weaknesses.
As a species we haven't graduated yet, but we haven't failed either.
).
