Posted by: graemebird | February 15, 2009

Less Than 90% Of The Killings?

It’s not like we did something wrong

We just burned down the church

While the choir within

sang a ree-ligious so-0ng

And it’s not like we thought we was right

We just played with the wheels

of a passenger train

That cracked on the tracks one night

(Cooper)

Here is a challenge for you all out there. Can anyone formulate an argument that would lend weight to the idea that environmentalism, the movement as a whole, was responsible for less than 90% of the killings?

Its simply ludicrous to suggest that they were not responsible for any of the killings. Particularly after the six metre revelation. What was the relevance of six metres one wonders? A Freudian slip of sorts since they were really thinking about the six feet they wanted to put people under?

So with regulations like that its not plausible to let environmentalism, the movement taken as a whole, off the hook for each and every last death. But I’m wondering if someone can put forward a convincing argument that lets them off the hook for 10% of the deaths? Or if you are successful at that surely not 20%?

Thats a challenge to throw out there. Me I think its impossible to make a plausible case in that direction. Perhaps if you were asked to statistically forgive the environmentalists for 5% of the deaths you might make a convincing case?

Who knows until someone tries it?

And On the whole

Its was a very good year

for the undertaker

(King)

Yes its true that if class actions are taken against various manifestations of environmentalist hate, that all in all it will mostly be just a very good year for the lawyers. But still these things need to go ahead. And this is where many millionaires of middling or just outside of the newspaper ranks have to start contributing to these legal actions to pose costs on the fascist movement. We must make these people a bit punch-shy or drain them of resources or both.  Or else there will be more killing because as we have seen they are totally without repentance and humility in the face of what they have acheived.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Yesterday the Greenies were THE murderers, today they are 90% murderers, if we wait a couple of weeks you will have completely put them off the hook.

    And again mixing unrelated quotes from people you know nothing about to “illustrate” your argument.

    Slowly but surely sliding down Madness Boulevard 🙂

  2. They aint off the hook and I’m not saying that 10% of the deaths are not there’s. I don’t want to hurt the pride that they will be showing but not in mixed company. I shall not rob them of their victory.

    But as an intellectual exercise you have to run the angles every which way.

    Now stop the smiley faces. Because you don’t mean it.

  3. “They aint off the hook and I’m not saying that 10% of the deaths are not there’s. I don’t want to hurt the pride that they will be showing but not in mixed company. I shall not rob them of their victory.”

    I will keep on smiling everyday of the week and twice on Sunday as long as you produce such nonsensical prose Birdy. 🙂

  4. Don’t do it. Its getting to be annoying. Now be a less callous little tart and try and respond to this question:

    “Try to get the environmentalists off the hook for 10% of the deaths. None of you can do it. Each and every one of you is full of shit. Your epistemology is crap because you think you can raise up the evidence bar and give yourself the benefit of the doubt and thats the sum total of what you got.

    But anyone can do that and you have to run the argument from all angles. No way can you even alibi them 10%. No way. But you ought to try.”

  5. No takers then? If the case cannot be made getting them off the hook for 10% of the killings then we have to assume I’m right.

    The environmentalists have a number of human-eradication projects on the go. And they will not listen to reason and they will not be quits with their denialism. So we have to stop them from the outside.

  6. What was the relevance of six metres one wonders? A Freudian slip of sorts since they were really thinking about the six feet they wanted to put people under?

    The significance of the number six is not six feet under…it’s the six million people that the Greenies intend to murder in Holocaust Mk II.

  7. “Hey Bird, do you really think it is wise to declare your support for terrorism and murder on a public forum?”

    You are lying. I did no such thing. Normally I wipe any post with even one lie in it. But I shall not wipe your post.

    For the record I don’t support terrorism in any shape or form. Not even in this example. I didn’t say I support terrorism in this example. If I supported terrorism in this example I would have said so. This is not what I said and its very clear that you are lying.

  8. You may be anonymous but you can be tracked down. You might want to watch what you say in future because if push comes to shove you can be charged with defamation.

    The above post where this anonymous coward lied to and about me would normally be wiped. But it stays as evidence should this threatening fellows obvious attempts to cause trouble actually amount to anything.

  9. Uhh Graeme I hate to break this to you but only one person can be charged with the allegedly defamatory comment in the case of a blog and that’s the publisher of the comment – namely you! Are you going to sue yourself for not wiping DK’s comment?

  10. Thats a good point. Thanks for that. Good work Jason. I’ll unapprove his comment right away and just store it in case he’s causing problems elsewhere.

    I actually think this nutty kid is pretty harmless. Anything I said he would extrapolate on it and address his own extrapolation rather than what I actually said.

    But he’s buggered with my morning because I felt the need to save the entire thread to maintain the context, and save it all over the place. 5 different places and two of them remote.

  11. thread on your favourite topic

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/02/austrian_challe.html#comments

  12. Its not my favourite topic Jason. Apart from defense under time stress its the most important topic. And its the one that people are most crazy about.

    Thanks for the tip. I’ve already made my first post.

  13. WHAT IS YOUR POINT SUSAN? YOUR QUOTE PROVES HE WAS LYING.

  14. RIGHT. SO YOU HAVE TWICE NOW POSTED DIRECT PROOF!!!!!!! PROOF!!!!!!!! THAT BOTH YOU AND THE OTHER BLOKE WERE LYING. AND ALSO ITS A CONFESSION THAT YOU THINK IF TERRORISM WERE TO WORK IT OUGHT TO BE CARRIED OUT. WHICH IS A DISGUSTING IDEA AND I TAKE THE OPPOSITE POINT OF VIEW. NOT BEING ANY SORT OF UTILITARIAN AT ALL.

  15. http://www.grods.com/post/5303/

    My god it really is an idiot-fascist sewer on that blog. The whole of them could just drop dead tomorrow and the only loss would be to the size of our deficit.

  16. PROVING THREE TIMES NOW THAT HE LIED AND THAT YOU HAVE LIED EVERY TIME YOU HAVE POSTED HERE TODAY.

    I DON’T MIND PEOPLE READING THAT. BUT SINCE THERE ARE MANY STUPID PEOPLE LIKE YOU AROUND I THINK ITS PRUDENT THAT THEY READ IT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE THREAD IN ITS ENTIRETY. IT PROVES YOU WRONG 100%. IT PROVES THAT YOU ARE LYING AND PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

    COME BACK ANOTHER DAY SUSAN. WHEN YOU ARE PREPARED TO NOT LIE. ITS RUDE FOR ONE THING.

  17. You are the last person in the world to give lectures in rudeness Birdy.

    The link you provided will give everybody a chance to witness your obnoxiousness 🙂

  18. Good Susan. Really its better to see sensitive information like that in context. People do take it the wrong way as we have seen.

  19. “I didn’t say that. What I said is that this rhetoric which places the blame of bushfire destruction at the feet of the Greens is spurious. There’s a difference. I’m not sure to what extent the impetus to maintain the bush conflicts with safety.”

    This stupid cunt Adrien doesn’t now know whether he’s talking about the Greens party, or individual environmentalists or individual Greens, or the environmental movement as a whole. He’s just lost in a shitrain of trying to get the other guy to prove everything while he offers nothing.

    So no information that these restrictions were in place can reach him now when he’s in a frenzy of hyper-denialist idiocy.
    .


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: