RE: What is Evil? (Bloody Fields)

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

What is Evil? (Bloody Fields)

in life •  7 years ago 

Well, if you support your contention, I will discuss it. You didn't.

But... how long will the current rate of change have to continue before we reach a potentially harmful CO2 level? What makes you think CO2 drives temperature? I ask questions you don't answer, because you but recite what you have been told.

This is why I said 'look at the data'.

Good luck

Have you ever published? Faced pressure to 'massage' your data to support a political agenda? You can hardly publish anymore without being subject to it.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

You are downvoted. I want an explanation for the downvotes.

I believe @bloom is a paid shill. I have never interacted with them before, but I have seen another post where @bloom and another account were shown to be, as here, consistently flagging comments and posts that weren't politically correct.

That's my best guess.

I reckon @bloom could tell you, but my recollection is they neither post nor comment, and receive regular influxes of money from a single account.

LOL, when I first saw your comment in my 'replies' feed, I thought YOU downvoted me XD

I was like 'WTF did I do??'

I'm not too concerned. I've been on here a while, and fearlessly post and comment. I've been amazed that I haven't been flagged into dust long ago.

Frankly, if my recollection is correct, I'll wear these flags as badges of honor. If I'm pissing off paid shills, I'm doing something right =D

Edit: I just realized however, that @bloom basically returned your VP to the reward pool. I've never been flagged before, so hadn't thought of the effect flagging one person has on those that upvote them.

So, sorry! I din't do it! Be mad at @bloom plz!

Political incorrectness, lies or the comment about scientific data and the government propaganda? Everything is too confusing for my limited mind lol. I hope @bloom explains about this here.

Yes, he was downvoted: for denying climate science - nothing personal.

I think it's appropriate to downvote posts/comments that deny well-established scientific or historical facts, examples include Holocaust denial (see also here), Climate science denial (see also here), Flat eath etc.

Also I prefer to avoid discussions with deniers about the topics of their denialism, because it gives the impression there is a debate where in fact there is no debate. While some deniers are just victims of disinformation, lack education or intelligence (or suffer from some mental condition), others do it to further a political agenda or for the purpose of trolling.

Recommended reading (in particular the part about irrationality) related to this issue is this post.

Usually I don't explain my downvotes in such detail - here I do it because @diabolika asked.

Science must be your religion, then? No heresy allowed! Who made you head of the thought police?

This is what it boils down to.

I have infuriated atheists by calling them 'religious zealots'.

XD

How oxymoronic of you! :) But we do have to keep tapping that patellar tendon, don't we?

I rather enjoyed this shitstorm: a much needed rain of nutrition for unfirtile minds. Keep it up!

PS: It was fucking hard to find your reply because you got muted and it was buried so deep in the comment pile. This injustice needs to be addressed. You were censored but not censured. Your censoring was also rebuked but not repealed. This is a flaw in the Steemit system. I agree with your views and yet must search for them. This isn't right. (That is if we actually had rights. :D)

Gaaah! Too much cognitive dissonance in one comment for me to integrate =p

Well, personally, I find it commendable you have clarified.

"...it gives the impression there is a debate where in fact there is no debate."

I will submit that this statement is utterly denial of science.

There is no settled science. None.

It's not the nature of science to be settled.

I certainly can understand why you might disagree with my views. You haven't seen the data I have, you haven't been pressured to change your data.

Nonetheless, please, while I do not ask you to discuss the matter with me, as you would find it to be contrary to your position, please do simply research the scientific method.

Scientific inquiry is capable only of disproving a thing. Therefore it cannot prove any damn thing at all.

Thanks!

Well, I just checked their account, and since they appear interested in certain science issues, I reckon it's my views on AGW.

While it says they have made 44 posts, all I can find is resteems - one of which was one of your posts!

I reckon @bloom won't comment. Doesn't seem to be their style. Their blurb about them says 'professional flagger'

LOL

Edit: they commented on a post of yours two months ago.

Said people were lenient about not flagging you =p

Hmmm so AGW seems interesting, ok I'm gonna do my homework now...

Edit:

Yeah, I know that and I greatly appreciate people not flagging me. I live off steemit and there are people who have hearts. Awww.

I noticed @bloom is connected to @nextgencrypto, who is @berniesanders.

I reckon it's a panderer, sucking up to a whale.

Sad.

Ok you have an answer.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Concurring @valued-customer.
In my view, @bloom's practice of havey handed 'professional' downvoting is short sightd, unenthical and uncalled for.

I have challengd @bloom previosuly to debate @bloom's behavior on FreezePeach Radio on MSP-Waves (mspwaves.com) - but have not heard back.

He would be loved by any totaltarian regime.
I guess he has a price. Good luck @bloom. The challenge stands.

cc @r0nd0n