Massive Die Off/ Extinction of Conservativism immanent..

[impartialobserver]

22 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Just out of curiosity, what does this mean to you:

Seems a lot like I'm saying "What's gullible to one person is not to another person" but I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

If you wanna rid your vocabulary of the word "credulous" then go for it, because it seems like you're loth to use it. I use it because it's quite descriptive of a huge problem that our society is facing right this very second. 

 

FWIW, here's a heaping dose of "objectivity" for you.

If you think that :

just because CTV and Joe Biden said so, you're a credulous dolt.

I.e., really bad plus 30% worse does not equal "ducky". 

First... please do not stop. I am begging you. I think that we need a SNL or SNL-like clip centered on your obsession about Covid and CNN/CTV... I love it how you honestly believe EVERYBODY that does not align with you 100% is someone that has CNN on every hour of the day. Crappensburg State really pushes out some big ones. It is also amusing how you so crave affirmation. You keep responding hoping that I will say, "Oh, you are so smart and I was so stupid".. I know that you quote this.. your game is too easy to spot.

When I read your section... I think that you need to learn to write better. Second, if you two believe randomly believe in a topic/idea then of course one is not going to think that the other is gullible. Poor example. Now... lets see something that shows a quantifiable, numerically-based measure of HOW gullible a person is? If you can't (which a rational person with an IQ above 20 would know).. then maybe you should admit that there is no such thing. 

Eg, if someone else believes in Santa at 35, and you also believe in Santa at 35, your crediblometer will say "That person's not credulous at all. Santa is REAL goddammit!"

Edited September 27, 2023 by impartialobserver

[WestCanMan]

13 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

First... please do not stop. I am begging you. I think that we need a SNL or SNL-like clip centered on your obsession about Covid and CNN/CTV... I love it how you honestly believe EVERYBODY that does not align with you 100% is someone that has CNN on every hour of the day. Crappensburg State really pushes out some big ones.

When I read your section... I think that you need to learn to write better. Second, if you two believe randomly believe in a topic/idea then of course one is not going to think that the other is gullible. Poor example. Now... lets see something that shows a quantifiable, numerically-based measure of HOW gullible a person is? If you can't (which a rational person with an IQ above 20 would know).. then maybe you should admit that there is no such thing. 

Eg, if someone else believes in Santa at 35, and you also believe in Santa at 35, your crediblometer will say "That person's not credulous at all. Santa is REAL goddammit!"

Buddy, you're just a wanna be nerd, trying to use words like quantifiable and subjective as if they're your friends... Sorry but they're not. 

No one ever said "This statement registered 98.646 on the credulometer, Cap'n. I do believe that we just witnessed the setting of a new world record."

FYI it's possible for there to be consensus that someone is the ugliest person in the room or in your school or at your work but as hard as people try to "measure" beauty, it's still subjective. There will probably be one person there who says "Uh-uh, that's the finest human being I've ever laid eyes on." C'est la vie. 

Are people not allowed to use the word "ugliest" around you? Tastiest? Most delicious? Smelliest? 

Wise up. Humans have been using "est" on non-quantifiable adjectives since the invention of the suffix, and balling up your wee fists won't change that.  

Edited September 27, 2023 by WestCanMan

[impartialobserver]

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Buddy, you're just a wanna be nerd, trying to use words like quantifiable and subjective as if they're your friends... Sorry but they're not. 

No one ever said "This statement registered 98.646 on the credulometer, Cap'n. I do believe that we just witnessed the setting of a new world record."

FYI it's possible for there to be consensus that someone is the ugliest person in the room or in your school or at your work but as hard as people try to "measure" beauty, it's still subjective. There will probably be one person there who says "Uh-uh, that's the finest human being I've ever laid eyes on." C'est la vie. 

Are people not allowed to use the word "ugliest" around you? Tastiest? Most delicious? Smelliest? 

Wise up. Humans have been using "est" on non-quantifiable adjectives since the invention of the suffix, and balling up your wee fists won't change that.  

So you can't measure it or quantify it but it is not subjective. Wow... you are special. Beauty is subjective as well.. what you find beautiful, others may not. So, you can't own up to there being no objective, quantifiable measure... so that tells me that you are not honest.. An honest person would simply say, "there is no way to measure it" and leave it at that. 

What you deem to be gullible.. someone else may not and guess what.. they are not wrong. You can only be wrong when there is quantifiable, measurable data to rely upon? There is no metric for gullibility so nothing to verify. 

Keep trying for my affirmation and I will keep rejecting you. Crappensburg State... this is what you produced. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by impartialobserver

[WestCanMan]

13 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

So you can't measure it or quantify it but it is not subjective.

Those are your words, no one else said that.

Quote

Wow... you are special. Beauty is subjective as well.. what you find beautiful, others may not. So, you can't own up to there being no objective, quantifiable measure... so that tells me that you are not honest.. An honest person would simply say, "there is no way to measure it" and leave it at that. 

Wrong.

At some point, reasonability surpasses weights and measures. 

When you say "The ugliest person in this room or in this school or at my work" it's possible for that to be correct. That's because "in this room", etc, narrows the topic of beauty to "contemporary beauty standards", so a unibrow and some large facial warts won't carry the day for your hopeful beauty queen. 

Sure, beauty remains "subjective", but we can still come to a unanimous decision without the aid of the metric system, do you get it?

Saying "The most credulous people" still stands as correct above because you couldn't name any comparables. 

And FYI, in the future if someone says to you "Lou Gehrig was the best hitter ever" that's not an invitation to discuss the topic of subjectivity. That's where you rise to the challenge and say "Blah blah blah" or "I don't watch baseball so I don't care", etc. It's how humans communicate, so by definition, we, as a species, are correct. 

If you wanna carry on with your wannabe nerd thing, go for it. I'm sure it gets you your fair share of D. 

Quote

What you deem to be gullible.. someone else may not and guess what.. they are not wrong. You can only be wrong when there is quantifiable, measurable data to rely upon? There is no metric for gullibility so nothing to verify. 

You're wrong again, kiddo. Just because something isn't entirely quantifiable doesn't mean that it can't easily be judged against something else with complete accuracy.

Karen: "Whose cupcake did you award the medal for "Best Cupcake" to at the county fair, Tina?"

Tina: "There wasn't actually a rulebook laying out the specific criteria that the cupcakes were meant to be judged by, so I had to declare "No winner"."

Karen: "Well there were only two, and technically one of them was a mudpie, so Shirley's cheesecake truffle cupcake was definitely the best, don't you think?"

Tina: "It doesn't matter what I think, that's entirely subjective. Just wait for my friend impartial observer to get here and he'll explain to you why no one's cupcake could actually win the award for "Best cupcake"."

Quote

Keep trying for my affirmation and I will keep rejecting you. Crappensburg State... this is what you produced. 

I don't need your affirmation, I'm just making fun of you. 

You just registered 87.32769858 on the nerdoscale while at the same time, sounding like you're not all that intelligent. FYI that's a bad combo. If you wanna go full-nerd, at least try to sound s.m.r.t. while you're doing it. 

[impartialobserver]

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Those are your words, no one else said that.

Wrong.

At some point, reasonability surpasses weights and measures. 

When you say "The ugliest person in this room or in this school or at my work" it's possible for that to be correct. That's because "in this room", etc, narrows the topic of beauty to "contemporary beauty standards", so a unibrow and some large facial warts won't carry the day for your hopeful beauty queen. 

Sure, beauty remains "subjective", but we can still come to a unanimous decision without the aid of the metric system, do you get it?

Saying "The most credulous people" still stands as correct above because you couldn't name any comparables. 

And FYI, in the future if someone says to you "Lou Gehrig was the best hitter ever" that's not an invitation to discuss the topic of subjectivity. That's where you rise to the challenge and say "Blah blah blah" or "I don't watch baseball so I don't care", etc. It's how humans communicate, so by definition, we, as a species, are correct. 

If you wanna carry on with your wannabe nerd thing, go for it. I'm sure it gets you your fair share of D. 

You're wrong again, kiddo. Just because something isn't entirely quantifiable doesn't mean that it can't easily be judged against something else with complete accuracy.

Karen: "Whose cupcake did you award the medal for "Best Cupcake" to at the county fair, Tina?"

Tina: "There wasn't actually a rulebook laying out the specific criteria that the cupcakes were meant to be judged by, so I had to declare "No winner"."

Karen: "Well there were only two, and technically one of them was a mudpie, so Shirley's cheesecake truffle cupcake was definitely the best, don't you think?"

Tina: "It doesn't matter what I think, that's entirely subjective. Just wait for my friend impartial observer to get here and he'll explain to you why no one's cupcake could actually win the award for "Best cupcake"."

I don't need your affirmation, I'm just making fun of you. 

You just registered 87.32769858 on the nerdoscale while at the same time, sounding like you're not all that intelligent. FYI that's a bad combo. If you wanna go full-nerd, at least try to sound s.m.r.t. while you're doing it. 

And everybody else (except you) knows that judging is subjective. X person can think that xyz food is good and Y person does not. Is Y person wrong? No... But I know that you can't fathom this. Crappensburg State strikes again.

 

If you were not craving affirmation.. you would not be so insistent on my buying into your subjective opinion. The fact that you keep responding and getting increasingly adamant/long winded shows that. 

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by impartialobserver

[WestCanMan]

51 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

And everybody else (except you) knows that judging is subjective.

Yet possible. 

[impartialobserver]

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Yet possible. 

Subjective vs. Objective... and yet you go out into left field with this ^^^^. Again, you are craving affirmation. Must be a lonely existence to crave the affirmation of a stranger. A more self-assured, rational person would think, "This person does not agree with me.. moving along" and forget about them but you can't.. 

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Subjective vs. Objective... and yet you go out into left field with this ^^^^. Again, you are craving affirmation. Must be a lonely existence to crave the affirmation of a stranger. A more self-assured, rational person would think, "This person does not agree with me.. moving along" and forget about them but you can't.. 

I just think that you're an idi0t, TBH.

I think that every other human on the planet understands that the words prettiest, smelliest, ugliest, etc, still belong in our vernacular. Sure, they're entirely subjective, yet that doesn't mean that they can never be considered to be true.

Ditto for "most credulous". Sure, I'll grant you that there's no such thing as a credulometer, you just have to notice credulity when you see it, and right now it's visible from space. 

[impartialobserver]

26 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I just think that you're an idi0t, TBH.

I think that every other human on the planet understands that the words prettiest, smelliest, ugliest, etc, still belong in our vernacular. Sure, they're entirely subjective, yet that doesn't mean that they can never be considered to be true.

Ditto for "most credulous". Sure, I'll grant you that there's no such thing as a credulometer, you just have to notice credulity when you see it, and right now it's visible from space. 

The core of our "debate" or pointless conversation is whether gullibility is subjective or objective. A person with even adequate intelligence(  which from what you post.. you are fall way short of that) could acknowledge that gullible is an adjective and 100% subjective. Therefore there is no ironclad way to show that person X is more gullible than person Y. Your contention that even without objective measurement.. it is obvious is garbage. 

Here is a better example of your nonsense. You like Rock Band X and lets say I do not. A reasonable, rational person would know that music is subjective and leave it be. You can't.. you would insist that it is obvious Band X is the best and therefore my not liking them means I am stupid. When asked why Band X is the best.. you would say, "it is obvious.. is it not?" I would disagree and like a reasonable, rational person.. would move on.

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

The core of our "debate" or pointless conversation is whether gullibility is subjective or objective. A person with even adequate intelligence(  which from what you post.. you are fall way short of that) could acknowledge that gullible is an adjective and 100% subjective. Therefore there is no ironclad way to show that person X is more gullible than person Y. Your contention that even without objective measurement.. it is obvious is garbage. 

Subjective doesn't mean "impossible to compare", as you're suggesting.

It can be very easy to prove that person x is more gullible than person y.

Also, some bands demonstrably suck, while others are obviously very good, just maybe with a poor taste in music. 

[impartialobserver]

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Subjective doesn't mean "impossible to compare", as you're suggesting.

It can be very easy to prove that person x is more gullible than person y.

Also, some bands demonstrably suck, while others are obviously very good, just maybe with a poor taste in music. 

Compare.. yes. However, that is not your message. Your message is that if someone does not agree with your subjective opinion.. they are wrong. Then show me in a quantifiable fashion how you can prove that x person is more gullible than person y. Now.. no subjective opinions or assumptions. Lets see if you can do this.. put up or shut up.

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Compare.. yes. However, that is not your message. Your message is that if someone does not agree with your subjective opinion.. they are wrong. Then show me in a quantifiable fashion how you can prove that x person is more gullible than person y. Now.. no subjective opinions or assumptions. Lets see if you can do this.. put up or shut up.

Buddy, I offered you the chance to pick a group of people whose credulity is comparable to that of the covidi0ts and you declined, saying that it was too subjective of a thing to measure.

Those guys watched the back-peddling go all the way from "safe and effective, resulting in herd immunity" to "it kills less people than it saves, we never said anything about herd immunity, and we still think it's somewhat effective".

But "somewhat effective" resulted in 24% more covid deaths in Canada in 2022 (85% vaxed) than 2020 (0% vaxed). And approximately 86% of those deaths in 2022 were among the multi-vaxed, which means that MORE VAXED PEOPLE DIED OF COVID HERE IN 2022 THAN UNVAXED DIED IN 2020. You know, 2020, when there was no vax, and covid was a 'novel virus' so the "experts" were saying that most of our immune systems couldn't fight it...

Dude, the 'vax' is absolutely not a 'vaccine'. It should be an actual crime to use that word for the covid shot. 

None of these covidi0ts will even look at the stats. Some of them still think that vaxed people don't die of covid, period, and if you hand them the stats they will either treat you like a monster or look away. Then they will tell their 25 yr old kids that they can't come visit them unless they're vaxed. 

These people are f'ing sick. They aren't just credulous, they're brainwashed to the point of refusing knowledge and willfully harming their fellow Canadians/risking the health of their own children. And they won't even ask if vaxed people are dying of covid. They do not want to know. They want their vax fairy tale and they're scorched earth on everything else. 

[impartialobserver]

21 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Buddy, I offered you the chance to pick a group of people whose credulity is comparable to that of the covidi0ts and you declined, saying that it was too subjective of a thing to measure.

Those guys watched the back-peddling go all the way from "safe and effective, resulting in herd immunity" to "it kills less people than it saves, we never said anything about herd immunity, and we still think it's somewhat effective".

But "somewhat effective" resulted in 24% more covid deaths in Canada in 2022 (85% vaxed) than 2020 (0% vaxed). And approximately 86% of those deaths in 2022 were among the multi-vaxed, which means that MORE VAXED PEOPLE DIED OF COVID HERE IN 2022 THAN UNVAXED DIED IN 2020. You know, 2020, when there was no vax, and covid was a 'novel virus' so theli "experts" were saying that most of our immune systems couldn't fight it...

Dude, the 'vax' is absolutely not a 'vaccine'. It should be an actual crime to use that word for the covid shot. 

None of these covidi0ts will even look at the stats. Some of them still think that vaxed people don't die of covid, period, and if you hand them the stats they will either treat you like a monster or look away. Then they will tell their 25 yr old kids that they can't come visit them unless they're vaxed. 

These people are f'ing sick. They aren't just credulous, they're brainwashed to the point of refusing knowledge and willfully harming their fellow Canadians/risking the health of their own children. And they won't even ask if vaxed people are dying of covid. They do not want to know. They want their vax fairy tale and they're scorched earth on everything else. 

Long story made short.. you offered nothing of any quantitative value.. just more subjective opinions. Your subjective opinion is correct because you say it is and I am supposed to fall in line because you say so.. Wow, what a clown. 

When you compare subjective items.. you have no absolute, agreed can upon metric and rational, reasonable folks know this and therefore know that one subjective opinion is no better than the other. Now.. if the question was who has won more games in an NBA season.. there is a correct answer. I know that you have not the intellect to see the difference. 

We have went over how I do not care in the least about COVID but your irrational obsession does not allow you to put it aside... I know why. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by impartialobserver

[WestCanMan]

28 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Long story made short.. you offered nothing of any quantitative value.. just more subjective opinions. Your subjective opinion is correct because you say it is and I am supposed to fall in line because you say so.. Wow, what a clown. 

When you compare subjective items.. you have no absolute, agreed can upon metric and rational, reasonable folks know this and therefore know that one subjective opinion is no better than the other. Now.. if the question was who has won more games in an NBA season.. there is a correct answer. I know that you have not the intellect to see the difference. 

We have went over how I do not care in the least about COVID but your irrational obsession does not allow you to put it aside... I know why. 

Long story short, you're quite convinced that your arse is where your head needs to be. Hit the skids you worthless little sycophant. 

[impartialobserver]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Long story short, you're quite convinced that your arse is where your head needs to be. Hit the skids you worthless little sycophant. 

^^^^ Self righteous, 20 pt IQ type that can't fathom that his subjective opinions are not gospel. LIttle wonder that you come to a forum and remain anonymous. 

[WestCanMan]

14 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

^^^^ Self righteous, 20 pt IQ type that can't fathom that his subjective opinions are not gospel. LIttle wonder that you come to a forum and remain anonymous. 

Blah, blah, blah.

You have nothing intelligent to add here. 

For whatever reason you just wanna hide behind the word "SUBJECTIVE!" like a little kid clinging to his mommy's skirt. 

You have no worthwhile opinions, insights, comments, information, links, data or anything else. You just want to opine but crying "subjective" isn't even an opinion.

Sorry kid, but most of what you'll encounter in life is subjective. You can't watch the news without their biases infecting every story they touch, but you're here worrying about whether or not I should be able to disseminate factual information. 

IMO facts should always be welcome, your crocodile tears are just a sideshow. 

Get it?

Sh1t or get off the pot, whiner. Sack up and say something or just change your signature to: "Everything here is subjective, therefor I cannot enter into any more discussions on this forum."

[Rebound]

On 9/22/2023 at 3:25 PM, Nationalist said:

I'm just wondering...

Has it occurred to you that for  "Conservatives", change is not always welcome. "Conservatives" need a good reason to change. Without that good reason, we see no real reason to change anything. Especially those things that we know work.

For instance...for a certain amount of money, we can produce a number of carbon based products that produce energy on demand. All one has to do is burn it. Doing so drives our societies. Liberals want to discontinue this practice because its dirty and appears to be creating an issue within our planet's atmosphere.

OK...How big is this problem...precisely? Our entire society is built on the premise that burning fossil fuels produces the energy to drive our society...so it better be dire.

Well...predictions say...

Hold it...stop...stop..."predictions"? You don't know, do you.

Scientists say...

Ya ya yaaa...scientists say all sorts of nonsense. Had your 10th jab yet? What you're proposing has monumental consequences. Show me the proof.

You don't believe in science?

I believe in myself, my family and Gawd. The proof?

And so it goes...every day. With no real proof, the Liberal mind demands we commit economic suicide. In the name of shady information, using fear as a club to beat the masses into subservience...for no real good reason.

And...because I happen to be a "Conservative"...I call your bullshit.

We CAN change our carbon footie-print and make you happy...AND maintain what we have in hand so everyone is not subjugated to this...bullshit. At least a good "Conservative" would figure out a way to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Change happens whether we want it or not.  The world changes.  The behavior of foreign governments changes. Military threats change. Society changes.  
 

When the SCOTUS legalized gay marriage, they noted that society had changed. In 2004, Gavin Newsom was the first government official in the county to legalize gay marriages, and it took over a decade until, in 2015, the SCOTUS overturned all prohibitions against gay marriage nationwide.  
 

Things change whether we want them to or not. We don’t live in the world of the 1950’s.  

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Change happens whether we want it or not.  The world changes.  The behavior of foreign governments changes. Military threats change. Society changes.  
 

When the SCOTUS legalized gay marriage, they noted that society had changed. In 2004, Gavin Newsom was the first government official in the county to legalize gay marriages, and it took over a decade until, in 2015, the SCOTUS overturned all prohibitions against gay marriage nationwide.  
 

Things change whether we want them to or not. We don’t live in the world of the 1950’s.  

Things do change. But when a change is choked down everyone's throat and costs everyone money, many don't have, without a concrete reason...THAT my fine feathered friend...IS ABUSE OF POWER...and fcking bullshit!

Now...time to put up or shut up.

Is there any real and irrefutable evidence or solid facts available, that justify the imposition of these measures the governments have taken, at the expense of the public they are supposed to work for?

[WestCanMan]

The leftards' new mission: "Inject 'Gavin Newsom was the first government official in the county to legalize gay marriages' into every thread".

@Rebound "When Gavin Newsom was forcing Californians to sit at home, alone, and not even allowing them to have funerals for their loved ones, he was out living it up with large groups of strangers in a restaurant that most of his constituents couldn't even afford"

That's how times change, right? 

Edited September 28, 2023 by WestCanMan

[impartialobserver]

52 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Blah, blah, blah.

You have nothing intelligent to add here. 

For whatever reason you just wanna hide behind the word "SUBJECTIVE!" like a little kid clinging to his mommy's skirt. 

You have no worthwhile opinions, insights, comments, information, links, data or anything else. You just want to opine but crying "subjective" isn't even an opinion.

Sorry kid, but most of what you'll encounter in life is subjective. You can't watch the news without their biases infecting every story they touch, but you're here worrying about whether or not I should be able to disseminate factual information. 

IMO facts should always be welcome, your crocodile tears are just a sideshow. 

Get it?

Sh1t or get off the pot, whiner. Sack up and say something or just change your signature to: "Everything here is subjective, therefor I cannot enter into any more discussions on this forum."

Not everything is subjective.. but this is. How gullible or not someone is.. is purely subjective. What is not subjective? Number of jobs in a county, number of wins in a season by a team in the NBA, batting average of a given player in MLB. Everyone on this forum except knows the difference.. makes you feel pretty stupid. 

On a closing note.. thank you for never being an analyst or lawyer. What a shit show that would be. Presently, I am constructing a licensing database. No subjectivity here. the license to do xyz exists or not and it does not matter who is reading the text.. A license to do cosmetology in Nevada means the same thing to everyone because it is clearly defined. If we had you on this project.. you would not be able to even get started. 

[Hodad]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The leftards' new mission: "Inject 'Gavin Newsom was the first government official in the county to legalize gay marriages' into every thread".

@Rebound "When Gavin Newsom was forcing Californians to sit at home, alone, and not even allowing them to have funerals for their loved ones, he was out living it up with large groups of strangers in a restaurant that most of his constituents couldn't even afford"

That's how times change, right? 

OFFS, politically, it was a dumb move, but it was like 12 people doing outdoor dining at a legally open restaurant. 

It's not like he brought thousands of people to an indoor, unmasked superspreader rally that killed Herman Cain. ?

This is some of the most disingenuous outrage you've ever mustered. 

[CdnFox]

45 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Change happens whether we want it or not.  The world changes.  The behavior of foreign governments changes. Military threats change. Society changes.  
 

When the SCOTUS legalized gay marriage, they noted that society had changed. In 2004, Gavin Newsom was the first government official in the county to legalize gay marriages, and it took over a decade until, in 2015, the SCOTUS overturned all prohibitions against gay marriage nationwide.  
 

Things change whether we want them to or not. We don’t live in the world of the 1950’s.  

That doesn't make all change good or that we shouldn't look at whether it's change we  want.

I seem to recall a few people on the left complaining about change when the same SCOTUS decided abortion wasn't constitutionally protected.   

[Rebound]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That doesn't make all change good or that we shouldn't look at whether it's change we  want.

I seem to recall a few people on the left complaining about change when the same SCOTUS decided abortion wasn't constitutionally protected.   

Of course! Plenty of change is bad, but it’s still change.  
 

A company called Xerox hired a bunch of engineers to create ideas for the future of office automation. So they invented the graphical user interface, including windowing. They invented the mouse, and Ethernet, and the laser printer.  
 

Pretty Big Change. But the executives at Xerox didn’t like this change. They declared that their business was making copying machines, so they gave all of this technology away. 
 

Cars are changing to electric technology. 
Energy production is changing to renewables. 
Communications systems are instant. 
 

It doesn’t matter whether these changes are good or bad; they simply ARE. There will be winners and losers. All I can say is that the Conservative who resists change will be left out. 

[WestCanMan]

16 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Not everything is subjective.. but this is. How gullible or not someone is.. is purely subjective. What is not subjective? Number of jobs in a county, number of wins in a season by a team in the NBA, batting average of a given player in MLB. Everyone on this forum except knows the difference.. makes you feel pretty stupid. 

On a closing note.. thank you for never being an analyst or lawyer. What a shit show that would be. Presently, I am constructing a licensing database. No subjectivity here. the license to do xyz exists or not and it does not matter who is reading the text.. A license to do cosmetology in Nevada means the same thing to everyone because it is clearly defined. If we had you on this project.. you would not be able to even get started. 

You're a perfect example of a person who has actual knowledge because they learned something by rote, but has no idea how to apply that knowledge in a real life situation.

Yes, you can kind of recite the definition of the word 'subjective', but you do not know how to use it properly in a sentence, and you don't inherently understand what it means. 

FYI just because an opinion about something is subjective does not mean that the thing in question can't be compared to other things. PERIOD.

Eg: The cheese was smelly. Not as smelly as a body that had been decomposing for 7 days, but still smelly. 

Do you carry around a smellometer io? Is there such a thing? Does smelliness register in Scoville units? Can a person really say "smellier than"? Of course. It's normal. You, however, are not. 

Just understand this:

Covidi0ts are by far the most credulous people on earth. They unquestioningly memorize every new tidbit of blatant disinformation that they receive from their thoroughly discredited sources, and then instantly start regurgitating it with the frothy mouthed conviction of a religious zealot. When new disinformation from their precious source eventually refutes the old info, they just replace the old disinformation without experiencing a moment's cognitive dissonance, and the new falsehoods become sacrosanct.

There's literally no talking to those people. They're like io: anything that rocks their boat has to be shouted down. 

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Of course! Plenty of change is bad, but it’s still change.  
 

A company called Xerox hired a bunch of engineers to create ideas for the future of office automation. So they invented the graphical user interface, including windowing. They invented the mouse, and Ethernet, and the laser printer.  
 

Pretty Big Change. But the executives at Xerox didn’t like this change. They declared that their business was making copying machines, so they gave all of this technology away. 
 

Cars are changing to electric technology. 
Energy production is changing to renewables. 
Communications systems are instant. 
 

It doesn’t matter whether these changes are good or bad; they simply ARE. There will be winners and losers. All I can say is that the Conservative who resists change will be left out. 

Hogwash.

First off you seem to feel that a reasonable definition of 'change' is if anything anywhere occurs.  And thats not 'change'.

Inventing a new product is not change.  nor is giving away that product.

And change for the most part - certainly all your exmaples - absolutely aren't simply "ARE".  they were choices made and decisions implemented and they resulted from a long string of deliberate actions. Electric cars didn't just "happen".  Computers were invented and mareted - they aren't just "are".

And it absolutely matters if change is good or bad. We generally resist or eliminate or mitigate changes that are bad. we generally promote changes that are good.

And its childish to say people who resist negative change will be left out. Facism and Nazis were a change in europe - were people "left out" resisting those changes?

virtually none of what you said is accurate or meaningful.  We are humans.  we can choose what changes we want to bring on the world and we can choose how we will react or adapt to changes we can't stop.  What the hell did you think you were? A rock that has no say in what happens around it?