Melanin is a horrible differentiator to group people by. Especially since melanin levels can rise and fall which can change someone from one "category" to another.
Why not focus more on something that cannot change such as eye color? Sure you can hide your eye color but it does not change.
If you're going to be collectivist, at least be smart about it.
Blue colour means absence of pigment. So, a man with the iris of any colour can easily make it blue. This can be done through laser irradiation, for example. Laser treatment is very quick, efficient and it's absolutely irreversible. Seriously? I mean, that's a bit special to go put a laser in your eyes just to make it blue... 0 risk really? No need to take precautions? |
|
|
|
My gambling stats are bad as I lose more than I win from dice. I don't get it how people can get a positive gambling stat unless they are extremely lucky.
You can never win dice in the long run.
Nope you can't! I don't really understand all the hype with dice and bitcoin! I mean, with fiat money dice is really not the main gambling tool. You never see people going crazy for dice. But with btc it's a hell of mainstream way to lose money xD I prefer poker, here you CAN be at profit. Well most of the time I still lose, but you CAN be xD Any idea on why dice is a crazy trend in btc? |
|
|
|
There's a solution. It's possible to renounce US citizenship, and you can walk out without paying that million bucks. But I think it's better to have debt. The average American lives way better than the average Ethiopian or Somali who is totally debt-free.
Hmm... Well it mostly depends on what you think will happen to this debt. Not necessary to be a genius to see that it's impossible to repay such a debt. Which means that it doesn't really exists. But you're still paying. $233 Billion per year goes toward just the interest on the national debt. The 6th largest spending item and growing. By 2020 it will be more than we spend on our military. No, you're borrowing again to repay it. but you borrow more or less to the same person. The question is, what will happen when no one will lend you anymore? Well in the case of USA it's easy, they can just print whatever amount they want until their debt (which is in fix amount of dollars) worth nothing. |
|
|
|
Totally agreed. How genes (dominant/recessive) work in a nutshell (for those who don't know):
Black + white = black child
Black + blonde = black child with black hair
White with blue eyes genes + white with blue eyes genes = white child with blue eyes
Hmm... no... You know it's not only a question of dominant/recessive right? Most genes mix together, only some very precises genes (such as some hair colors or eye colors for example) are dominant/recessive couple. Genetics is a natural science so there could be no exact answer. Random mutations also need to be considered. But the combinations above most likely (like 95% or so) will outcome such results. You're wrong really. Here two articles which may help you understand how more subtile genetic is. It's not "95%" for most of genes. Most genes have an infinite number of possible combinations. https://www.quora.com/How-is-skin-color-determined-in-babieshttp://multiracial.com/site/index.php/2000/10/01/how-do-we-inherit-our-skin-color/Only very precise genes work with the dominant/recessive theory , others gives a result which is a combination of the two genes. I was talking about the examples I provided above. So black + any = black skin. It might be. A little bit. Less black. Shades are absolutely insignificant. Eventually, black + white = nigger niglet. Yes, white + white outcomes pretty various results. Edit: it's even possible that black + black will have a white! But that's a miserably small amount of cases. Oh. You're refusing to consider the infinity of variations of shades and forms? Well then you're more or less right... Wait! No you're not! Black + white = an infinity of results without any preponderance. When you mix two very different races you get a metis, and metis are all different. There sin't any great trend. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin: bleeding since 2015(TM)
What a awful year... and seems to go worse
2015 an awful year? Perhaps you were thinking of 2014, the only calendar year with a drop in the price of bitcoins. 2015 was actually a pretty good year for Bitcoin. It started around $300 and finished over $430 for an increase of over 40%. Not a bad year at all. I mean awful 2016  Agreed! Just hope it's a black January and it won't go on very longer ^^ |
|
|
|
Pretty soon your countrymen will be denouncing the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger, and by then it will be too late. You have a right to enforce your national borders. This is not racism. This is the protection of the human rights of your nation's population. Your nation does not owe anything to people just because they wander into your national borders. You are literally stealing from people within your country by force to accommodate people who most likely seek the destruction of your "generous" ideologies. Europe is being baited into accepting an untenable situation using appeals to emotion and collective cultural guilt. This will serve no one but the bankers you claim to oppose, yet actively serve.
Ok so you're denouncing the French democracy in fact. But what do we do then? I don't want your propositions. I find them stupid, limited, incredibly expansive, and coming directly from the Stone age. How do we decide if we enforce our borders or not? You seem to say that I'm forcing my people to open the borders... Well that's the base of democracy, if the majority wants open borders then we get open borders. You're criticizing French democracy (which I find very funny coming from an American xD). Yeah not perfect, and it's a representative democracy which could be better. But that has nothing to do with my opinion on borders. That's the system we live in, and with a direct democracy I would still have this opinion... Oh and btw, France has 4 000 km borders. You want to close them? Very well, how do you do that? When I was claiming it's not physically possible it's because it would cost far too much to close them. PS. and you over interpret some of my thoughts and ignore those that you don't want to talk about. I'm tired as hell of your bullshit. You really debate like an American, you remind of Trump that's funny ^^ |
|
|
|
Does gun control help prevent violent crimes or doesn't it? Make up your mind. You don't sound very precise at all. I already emboldened and numbered your logical fallacies and linked descriptions, I am not sure how much more clear I could make that part. If your premise that guns do not prevent violence is true then Australia, Belgium, and Sweden wouldn't have higher rape stats considering their strict gun control no? These countries crumble your premise that guns do not prevent violence. Additionally people tend to not report ATTEMPTED crimes that failed due to simply brandishing a firearm in self defense, so it is quite likely the statistics of defensive use of firearms are very underestimated. Just because I expect you to follow the rules of logic and support your opinion s with fact doesn't mean I am demanding "absolute proof", this is just more of your extremism showing. If its not your way it must be the exact polar opposite extreme! Merde!
Well, we agree on something. The vast majority of EU countries are less violent than USA. Where do you think it comes from then? I claim that gun control is part of the explanation, simply because the absence of guns diminishes the potential threat of each citizen. And as we're talking about social science, the questions are about statistical proofs. It's not because 2 countries in EU have higher rapes rate that you can just forget the 28/28 countries with less violent crimes and 26/28 with less rape rates. "Just because I expect you to follow the rules of logic and support your opinion s with fact doesn't mean I am demanding "absolute proof"" Well I did, I supported my claims with what I consider proofs. And you can't refute those arguments so you just say they're "not enough" well they might not be enough for you but they are for me. |
|
|
|
Which make me come back to my original point.... Where is Michael Moore lying?
It seems he's perfectly right no?
And I'm seeing a HUGE problem with the fact that more or less anyone can sell firearms and bullets to more or less anybody Oo
What is the huge problem other than you knee jerk conditioning to associate guns with violence? Do you think that way every time you see a knife or do you think ham sandwich? Just because you have never had a ham sandwich doesn't make the knife only for violence. I'm no longer arguing with you dude, you're just ignoring the parts of my speech that are troublesome for you. Wanna know what I think is a problem? I think there is a huge correlation between gun freedom and the incredible high violent crimes rate of your country. And I see no really good point in gun liberty as you're not protected from anything, neither banks nor rapes. Again I brought to you stats making those points. You were never debating me, you were just stringing together a bunch of logical fallacies and opinions. You are just mad because I dissected each and every one of them and proved how full of shit you are using the science of language - logic. You should learn it. Who the fuck are you some cheese munching Frenchman thousands of miles away in his own personal French Caliphate to tell Americans that they get no protection from guns just because you object to them? BTW the premise behind "your stats" was flawed, and I explained in detail why in previous posts even if you are too willfully ignorant to read it. Damn how can I be more precise than that... My claim was that gun control helps to prevent violent crimes and that gun freedom doesn't help to fight crimes. My evidence is that 28/28 EU nation have less violent crimes than USA, and the vast majority (26/28) have less rapes. Show me the "logical fallacy" here. And I'm trying to debate with you but you don't give a fuck about my arguments and don't explain yours. I'm still waiting for your evidence that USA is "incredibly has more diversity than EU". Who am I? Well, I don't know, maybe just a Bitcointalk user who came on a thread called "what's your OPINION on gun control" and who decided to share his OPINION on gun control and is supporting his claim with statistical proofs that EU countries are less violents than USA and BELIEVE it's linked to gun control. You want an absolute proof? That's impossible! The only way to actually prove it would be to instaure gun control in half of the USA and to see if it changes anything... |
|
|
|
Which make me come back to my original point.... Where is Michael Moore lying?
It seems he's perfectly right no?
And I'm seeing a HUGE problem with the fact that more or less anyone can sell firearms and bullets to more or less anybody Oo
What is the huge problem other than you knee jerk conditioning to associate guns with violence? Do you think that way every time you see a knife or do you think ham sandwich? Just because you have never had a ham sandwich doesn't make the knife only for violence. I'm no longer arguing with you dude, you're just ignoring the parts of my speech that are troublesome for you. Wanna know what I think is a problem? I think there is a huge correlation between gun freedom and the incredible high violent crimes rate of your country. And I see no really good point in gun liberty as you're not protected from anything, neither banks nor rapes. Again I brought to you stats making those points. No. Not unless you can try to articulate logical arguments better than has been evident so for. Stating "I think" or "I see" is not evidence, and what "stats you have brought" seem to have had their horses shot out from under them. My stats were good. The only thing you found that was "flawed" was the fact that Australia also had gun control which I was not aware of. Still 26/28 countries in Europe have less rape than USA and all of them have less violent crimes. If you don't see a corelation between those facts I don't see what I can do for you... |
|
|
|
Many of the points at the site you linked are simply statements. Some of them have been refuted far more strongly at "44 Reasons" than they have been stated at "Evolution 101." It would be interesting to do a comparison.
I wonder how much the scientists involved see things the way they want rather than what is logically there.
Do you also believe the banana is proof of God? Behold the Atheist's NightmareIf so, how do you explain the coconut, or the pineapple? Science has a different expectation when it comes to words like "proof" and "evidence" than religion... All by itself, the banana may not be proof of God. But, it is way more proof of God than it is proof of evolution. Why do you ask me to explain coconuts and pineapples? You can find all kinds of information about them if you do an Internet search. Of course, if you don't know this by now, it probably doesn't do any good to tell you. Yes. The science religion has different ... than other religions. You might understand the joke if you would click the link and watch the 1 minute video made by Christians (spoiler: one of them is Kirk Cameron) "If you study a well-made banana..." "God has placed a tab at the top like a soda can" "The wrapper is bio-degradable" (no shit.. its a banana!) Pure comedy... hence the question about the pineapple... not so human-friendly as a banana Ahah, seems I missed some good things last night xD Well it reminds me of all the videos "proving the existence of god" where their only argument is that the golden ratio is everywhere. So for them it's a proof that god is at the base of everything. Nothing to do with the fact that gravity makes everything round and that everything round has the golden ratio somewhere  |
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with your god.
It's only a question of biology and evolution... You claim your god is behind the evolution process?
Evolution!? Now, there's a joke. All the proven things that are called "evolution," can also be demonstrated to be "programming." Presently, there isn't enough evolution fact around that shows how anything could have developed from scratch by evolution. And if somebody DID happen to show an evolution process that had no holes in it, so that it was absolutely possible for something to have come about by evolution, there is STILL no way to prove that this is what really DID happen. Furthermore, nowhere in the universe have we found anything that is greater being produced by something that is lesser. There is much scientific speculation about this. But it is not seen anywhere. In fact the opposite is the only thing that we see. Everything has to do with my God... the God of creation.  So you're denying the idea of evolution? Well I understand better xD Evolution is not just a "theory". It has been proven through Darwin's experiments then verified by multiple different scientists. It's through the evolution principles are the base of multiple scientific progresses. How can I be denying the idea of evolution when I am talking about it? As usual, you are not thinking clearly. The idea of evolution makes for fun thinking and stimulation. Think of all the science fiction stories that would never have existed if the idea of evolution was not around. Besides, it's in the textbooks. I'd have to have been a hermit on mountain all my life to deny the idea. The term "evolution" has come to mean many things to many people. Some of these might be truth. But many of them are not. Because of this, when you say that evolution has been proven, you are wrong, except that you explain the particular definitions and applications of the term "evolution" where it might happen to be exist factually. Darwin's experiments never came close to proving evolution. Even Darwin, himself, doubted his own work. Read the things that he says. "Evolution" as a principle where more complex life comes about from less complex life is completely flawed. Such a thing doesn't happen in nature that anybody has been able to find. When a scientist creates evolution under laboratory conditions, it is complex life (the scientist) making less complex material to become more complex material. The evolution principle that over time one species of creature becomes a different species is completely flawed. There aren't any missing links that can be proven such in the fossil record. People may theorize. People may hope. But in the end, there is no proof. The evolution principle that inorganic material became life is completely flawed. Not only is there no evidence of such happening, we complex humans can't even make it happen in the laboratory. So, what is your definition or application that is termed "evolution" that actually works? Well... I don't know if you ever tried to read anything about evolution... Seems to me you didn't. Otherwise you would know that evolution is largely proven, that we managed to list each and every species in a precise evolution order and that everythin matches with such perfection that it would be incredible that this theory is flawed as you say. But that means you believe humans were created the way they are now? So that we didn't evolve from a common ancestor with great apes? And when was the humanity created? Not only that, but I even read "Planet of the Apes" book, saw the movie, saw a couple of the sequels, and read the some of the papers on evolution. Actual papers on evolution only suggest that evolution might be fact. Much media says it is fact. Have you seen it in "Enquirer?" So I'm going to ask again: What do you believe? That humanity was created from stone 5 000 years ago? |
|
|
|
Totally agreed. How genes (dominant/recessive) work in a nutshell (for those who don't know):
Black + white = black child
Black + blonde = black child with black hair
White with blue eyes genes + white with blue eyes genes = white child with blue eyes
Hmm... no... You know it's not only a question of dominant/recessive right? Most genes mix together, only some very precises genes (such as some hair colors or eye colors for example) are dominant/recessive couple. |
|
|
|
Well, if you come in foreign country in order to start new life and you don't even make effort to learn language, how much serious you are?
If you can't communicate you can't work, integrate in society, etc.
I agree with Cameron.
you are god damn right .. if you want to live abroad, you should learn its language, culture etc.. Language yes, culture... Why? Why should it be them to learn our culture? I mean, there is no reason for that as long as they learn the language so they're able to communicate with us and they respect the laws. |
|
|
|
That's online pussy shit. The only thing that makes you feel more alive than a new all time high is the cold steel of a uniformed bigot's gun barrel working its way into your thong.
I don't think these are mutually exclusive business ideas. Police can tweet some pretty mean stuff, dawg.  Sad but true.  When you wake up and that's the first thing you see in the morning xD Thanks for making my day. |
|
|
|
I bought at 380 thinking it would only go up, and you know what? I hate being wrong ><
The common traders emotion, "Why does the price always go down after I buy and goes up right after I sell". Well we just need to wait for a little while for the price to push around the $390 mark again. True, but I see only a lowering trend and it's bothering me a lot  Probably, you need to zoom out a little bit in order to have a better perspective. Sometimes, I wonder, unless it is just for trolling effect, how posters can get so worked up about the price movement within one or two weeks or some other selective period of time that shows a downward trend. We have both downward and upward trends in bitcoin, and both can be occurring at the same time depending on the timeline that you are describing. Surely, we may have some continuing and ongoing downtrend, even below $300 - however, if we realize that to be a possibility, then we should prepare for such - which doesn't necessarily mean betting all of our BTC holdings that it is going below $300, when we may only see that as a less than 10% probability. At this point, I am inclined towards thinking the next 5% adjustment in BTC prices will be down... I give it a 53% for down and 47% for up.... But really it is not a clear and convincing conviction merely to be inclined to believe one way or the other. Not trolling dude... Merely worrying about the future that's all... I'm glad you have so much faith in bitcoin and so much self control. I for myself am a bit worried about a potential stagnation linked to the issues btc is facing. I don't like seeing the lowering trend of the past weeks, and I don't want to see a new age of 280/300 $ that's all. |
|
|
|
Poor Science... only 0.7% of the budget  Education, 2.6%... Military budget is still more than the rest of the world spends on military combined I don't like how they lump Social Security in with Unemployment & Labor... Social Security is a separate tax, with a separate budget (before congress stole the funds in the bank account anyway) Yeah but that's because USA is a completely fucked up country of crazy warmongers xD Most countries understand that sending thousands of citizens in order to kill and rape people on another continent is not the best way to spend tax money ^^ |
|
|
|
This has nothing to do with your god.
It's only a question of biology and evolution... You claim your god is behind the evolution process?
Evolution!? Now, there's a joke. All the proven things that are called "evolution," can also be demonstrated to be "programming." Presently, there isn't enough evolution fact around that shows how anything could have developed from scratch by evolution. And if somebody DID happen to show an evolution process that had no holes in it, so that it was absolutely possible for something to have come about by evolution, there is STILL no way to prove that this is what really DID happen. Furthermore, nowhere in the universe have we found anything that is greater being produced by something that is lesser. There is much scientific speculation about this. But it is not seen anywhere. In fact the opposite is the only thing that we see. Everything has to do with my God... the God of creation. So you're denying the idea of evolution? Well I understand better xD Evolution is not just a "theory". It has been proven through Darwin's experiments then verified by multiple different scientists. It's through the evolution principles are the base of multiple scientific progresses. How can I be denying the idea of evolution when I am talking about it? As usual, you are not thinking clearly. The idea of evolution makes for fun thinking and stimulation. Think of all the science fiction stories that would never have existed if the idea of evolution was not around. Besides, it's in the textbooks. I'd have to have been a hermit on mountain all my life to deny the idea. The term "evolution" has come to mean many things to many people. Some of these might be truth. But many of them are not. Because of this, when you say that evolution has been proven, you are wrong, except that you explain the particular definitions and applications of the term "evolution" where it might happen to be exist factually. Darwin's experiments never came close to proving evolution. Even Darwin, himself, doubted his own work. Read the things that he says. "Evolution" as a principle where more complex life comes about from less complex life is completely flawed. Such a thing doesn't happen in nature that anybody has been able to find. When a scientist creates evolution under laboratory conditions, it is complex life (the scientist) making less complex material to become more complex material. The evolution principle that over time one species of creature becomes a different species is completely flawed. There aren't any missing links that can be proven such in the fossil record. People may theorize. People may hope. But in the end, there is no proof. The evolution principle that inorganic material became life is completely flawed. Not only is there no evidence of such happening, we complex humans can't even make it happen in the laboratory. So, what is your definition or application that is termed "evolution" that actually works? Well... I don't know if you ever tried to read anything about evolution... Seems to me you didn't. Otherwise you would know that evolution is largely proven, that we managed to list each and every species in a precise evolution order and that everythin matches with such perfection that it would be incredible that this theory is flawed as you say. But that means you believe humans were created the way they are now? So that we didn't evolve from a common ancestor with great apes? And when was the humanity created? |
|
|
|
If you want to earn with gambling - you will definitely lose. From my experience only people who play for fun win occasionally.
Strategy? There is no guaranteed strategy to earn with gambling. All strategies work until they don't.
That is not entirely correct. It is very hard to be good at it, but there are some professional poker players and also professional sports betting punters, so it is possible. it has been very hard so far to keep winning. in my experience it is always possible to win big time and even get rich with one bet but that one bet will never happen to me  That depends of course how much you bet and win. But gambling is that you lose more often than win. You have to play with boundaries. You can not just all going to spend your money. if you are too frequent play gambling, certainly defeat would more than victory. like me bet on sports gambling. I bet when really there is games are quite interesting and easy to predict, so I do not too often lose. Sport gambling is indeed a bit different. You have a chance to win as you're in fact betting against other players! The bank doesn't earn on each of your defeat but more on the fact that globaly, if they do their work good, the rates will make the bank beneficial! |
|
|
|
Which make me come back to my original point.... Where is Michael Moore lying?
It seems he's perfectly right no?
And I'm seeing a HUGE problem with the fact that more or less anyone can sell firearms and bullets to more or less anybody Oo
What is the huge problem other than you knee jerk conditioning to associate guns with violence? Do you think that way every time you see a knife or do you think ham sandwich? Just because you have never had a ham sandwich doesn't make the knife only for violence. I'm no longer arguing with you dude, you're just ignoring the parts of my speech that are troublesome for you. Wanna know what I think is a problem? I think there is a huge correlation between gun freedom and the incredible high violent crimes rate of your country. And I see no really good point in gun liberty as you're not protected from anything, neither banks nor rapes. Again I brought to you stats making those points. |
|
|
|
The US Federal government is now over $19 trillion in debt. That's over $158k per taxpayer.
The US Federal government's unfunded liabilities (things the government promised to give out in the future, think contracts with defense contractors, promised pensions, social security, medicaire, etc.) are over $100 trillion which is over $844k per taxpayer.
Every US taxpayer is now on the hook for over $1 million, just for the debts and future obligations of our government. That doesn't include the yearly expenses of roads, schools, military, etc.
In essence, if you are a US taxpayer, you are $1 million in debt to the US Federal government. As long as you are paying taxes, you will be paying that debt. Plus you are paying for current government programs.
I agree with you on this problem, but looking at future liabilities and backing them to the present is kind of like looking at the sum total in the present of all my school, house and car loans in the future. It is future liabilities without offsetting future income streams. In some cases, this skews the calculation. For example, the rather disgusting practice of funding retirees' social security by current income would imply that it is an "expense," instead of future liability. We don't like it, but that would be standard accounting practice. Somewhat related - expect the US government to take over large segments of various consumer loan industries, bit by bit, just as they have the mortgage and college loan industries. These are lucrative industries if you can print money... Well, that future income stream is your future tax money. Yeah in a sense... But, normally, tax money is here for a reason and participate to the fonctionnement of your country, so it's here to pay the roads, the schools, the institutions, the army... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
