Haha, yeah right don't even attempt to intelligently discuss the points I bring up, that would be too much effort am I right?

Just chuck some immasculating ad hominem in there, some capital 'O's and an unsubstantiated accusation of drug use, and you're good to go right?

If you can't formulate any valid rebuttals to what either me or the OP are saying, do us both a favour and fuck off.

So you would rather die, than "dishonour" someone's dead body by eating it. Resulting in two dead people rather than just one.

If I was the person who had just died, that you were refusing to eat, I would find the refusal of you to eat me very disrespectful. If I was the mother of the person who had just died, I would find your refusal to eat the person very disrespectful.

Why sacrifice your own life for a dead piece of meat?

OK, serious answer:

No, I don't think I could bring myself to eat another live human, to me that is simply immoral because there is a chance they might survive. I don't condone murder.

However if the person is dead, I see absolutely no problem in using their meat to keep as many of the survivors alive as possible. They're dead, they don't care what happens to them. And if I found out that my mother had died in a plane crash, and after her death she was eaten by the survivors which led to their rescue, I would be proud and happy that my mother's meat had saved the lives of others!

I see the issue in a similar way to organ donation - when you die you may as well donate your shit to other people who need it. You're not gonna need those organs any more, so why not save some lives by donating them to someone who can use them?

"Good riddance" haha you don't even know the guy, no need to disrespect him you fucking dunce. If you've actually travelled to some other countries you'd know that there are some excellent opportunities available for work, quite often with reasonable pay.

Like OP explained, a big problem with many "western"/"developed" countries right now is that rent/houses/living expenses are really expensive compared to wages. Although the wages in underdeveloped countries are generally less, with some good skills and experience you could easily be earning $1-2k a month, and living expenses are a fraction of what they cost in places like the USA and UK. This means you could be getting a better quality of life living somewhere like SE Asia than in the USA, and be saving money to buy a house or similar in the future.

Assuming my mother's already dead, then yeah I'd eat her to stay alive. If your mother died first I'd eat her, If I died first I'd have no problem letting both our mothers eat me.

Basic survival shit, no shame if you survive to tell the tale. Survival being the key concept here.

You don't need to part with the content of those CDs and DVDs, just get a few hard drives/SSDs and copy all the media on to them. You can even get software that will compress your DVDs into much smaller video files, and your music into much smaller FLAC or mp3 files. Windows Media Player or VLC will do the CD-MP3 conversion (and to FLAC I think, which is optimum quality), you can download other software to compress and save your DVDs. All you need is a PC or laptop with a DVD drive (and to download DVD compression software from the Internet).

You could even send your discs to a third party to do all of that for you, but they will charge a hefty premium, easy enough to do it yourself IMO (although depending on the size of your collection it could take a few weeks to convert all the media). In my experience, a full CD takes 5-10 minutes, a DVD more like 1/4 hour to 1 hour.

But the beauty is, when you're done you have your whole music and film collection on hard drives, searchable and available within seconds. It's a worthwhile mission IMO. A compressed DVD film should take up no more than 1 GB, a FLAC music album should take up 3-500MB. That means with a couple of 1TB drives you should be able to get at least 1000 movies and 2000 albums. If you have HD films, or want to save the films uncompressed you'd be looking at a bit more storage, but not a lot more.

Define sodomites.


After you define what you mean by sodomites, explain clearly how they impact society in the way that you described. For example, if you described two men having anal sex as "anti human" and "anti civilisation", explain to me how a man and a woman having vaginal sex while using contraception (or having anal/oral sex) is any less "anti human" or "anti civilisation". Or perhaps a group of people having sex with each other for fun. After all, all groups are performing sexual acts that don't include procreation, and are first and foremost for pleasure.

Aah, still no scientific papers (peer reviewed or otherwise) on this theory I see?

Just link upon link of sketchy youtube videos, mostly with the signature spooky music, overedited production, biased narrative and subtle belittling of the opponents of the theory.

Science motherfuckers, do you speak it?

Your first part is true, global temp changes are normal when we look at the history of the Earth, but these changes happened over a huge timescale. What isn't normal is the incredible speed of the current warming trend, coupled with the spectacular increase in CO2 ppm during the last 150 years. That's what's worrying.

Define sodomy.

And who is jailing who exactly? Are you saying .gov will jail you for not being gay? Or for not accepting gay people in your society? Or are you saying that the gays are gonna jail you? Make your points clear, man.

Also, are you saying the gays are attacking christian communities, throwing stones at their houses? You got a source for that? Is it just pissed off gay people chucking stones at the houses of people that believe they should go to hell, and discriminate against them on a daily basis (i.e. many hardline evangelical christians)?

Are people bullying kids in school because said kids are mindless brainwashed robots that tell their gay schoolmates they should burn in hell for the way god made them, ie homosexual? I'd say that's pretty fair tbh, bout time some of these backwards young earth creationist evangelical brats got a taste of their own medicine, pushing their agenda on everyone else as if it's the fucking law.

Fuck any Christian/Muslim or any religious person that forces their way of life on me, I have no problem with people believing whatever the fuck they want, but when it infrignes on my personal choices and way of life (as long as I'm not harming anyone else) Fuck them and whatever they stand for.

"Baraka" (1992)

Youtube link 720p: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkaISwZoqpE



This is an incredible documentary film, with no narrative dialogue whatsoever. However, this forces the audience into finding narrative solely in the visual shots and audio, which makes for a very interesting exploration of themes such as the customs and rituals of humankind, man's influence on the natural environment, and the modernization of society and its benefits and drawbacks.

Rather than being a "standard" documentary (which would normally aim to tell a specific story), Baraka relies on beautiful footage in exotic locations, and how the life that inhabits those locations can affect the wider world, all through nothing more than unbelieveable camera shots and very clever editing.

I would recommend watching this masterpiece on the biggest screen you can find (in the highest resolution, I believe there is a 4K version available), with a powerful audio system - It is not what most people would imagine as a "movie", it's more of an audiovisual experience with an underlying message/narrative. But of course, the audience is welcome to make their own interpretations of the work, like all good art!



http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/reviews/275/full/1357358441_2.png

I feel you man, I'm in the UK at the moment, but the monumental fuck up that is Brexit and the Conservatives in power with none other than some fucking cyborg we call Theresa May in charge, has really made me question my place in this country. Sure, we are relatively "safe" here, but the rent/living expenses in the UK are ridiculous, and I'm not a fan of the over-regulation we have in the UK. eg, "Don't walk on the grass, don't drink in the street, no camping here!, if you protest you're now on our "anti-government" list etc.

I'm seriously thinking about moving to SE Asia to teach English or get a job related to my field in music production/DJing or printing. Probably Vietnam, seems like a cool place with nice, cheap food! Either that or maybe somewhere in South America, Peru/Ecuador/Colombia maybe.

Yeah, I get that these sort of countries can be dangerous, and are definitely corrupt. But what's better, corruption at the top of the pyramid (like we have in the UK and USA) where no normal person can influence it? or corruption through the whole system (where you can at least bribe a local police officer to get out of trouble). It seems like the corruption of the poorer countries is fairer on the whole population haha!

Well it's 54 years in fact, as far as I can see. And no, it's not an ideal sample size but it beats the ~6 months sample that was in the article that you yourself just posted. So how can you possibly criticise my sample when yours is less than 1% of the length of my sample?

In fact there are temp and CO2 records going back to the mid to late 1800s, but the graph I chose has the records of El Nino/La Nina in too, which may not have existed that early on.

Still don't see how you think your 1/2 year sample trumps my 54 year one, can you elaborate on that?

The Express is a British tabloid, highly biased both politically and socially, it is not a great source for this sort of thing. I haven't read the article (I will now and edit accordingly), but this sounds very suspiciously like a rehash of the recent Breitbart story (which was totally debunked). I will read the article and comment again.

I would say that although we will never know the 100% truth, there is a difference between one side having exponentially more evidence for their hypothesis than the other. We don't know the 100% truth about gravity or quantum physics effects, but they are universally accepted. The same could be for climate science, in fact the evidence so far is verging on "certain".

However I do agree that both sides are "making cash" from their opinion, but this is mainly related to the media. I believe there are many people in the petrochemical industry making billions, even though they believe that what they are doing is wrong and could damage the planet. But they wont be around to experience it, so it doesn't matter. Likewise, there are people in climate science funded by petrochemical companies who are willing to make false assumptions about research, as there are honest climate scientists who would refuse such funding to attempt unbiased research.

It's a complicated problem

EDIT: Yeah, that trashy express article is using an erroneous measurement: - comparing the global temp in a period of less than 6 months to imply that the planet isn't warming. Any scientist will tell you that this is a far too small sample of data to predict an overlying trend. For instance take a look at this graph:



See how el nino/la nina seem to be irrelevant when you increase the sample size to an approriate amount?

Actor_Tom_Truong is an advanced(?) bot that was created by a joint effort between the CIA, MI6 and Mossad to stir up paranoia in the western world, to acheive a goal of normalizing the concept of "HyperNormalisation" in certain political demographics.

This in turn gives more credibilty to generally right wing, fringe conspiracy groups whose votes and actions can be controlled and directed more easily through this method of targeted media (through search algorithm bubbles on youtube and google, which normalise their paranoia and turn them into a fighting force, whose votes are worth securing).

Hows that for an "inverted conspiracy theory" - ie the actual theory is bullshit, but the actions of the followers latching onto it are the object of the meta-conspiracy.

Something to think about, tinfoilers!

iamnotback:

Rather than writing ridiculous "gish gallops" why don't you give coherent, concise answers to posts?

For example, can you explain why the 10 warmest years in 136 years (excepting 1998) have occured since the year 2000?

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

This gif is enlightening:


http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2016/05/spiral_optimized.gif

What you say is true, the swastika was an ancient symbol used by Buddhists and Hindus as a symbol of peace. However its meaning was bastardized by the Nazis resulting in it's connotations changing to the authorotarian connotation it has today.

I don't think the LGBT symbol of the gay community should gain that sort of negative connotation (unless some militant gay rights group use it to justify the killing/torture of massive amounts of people).

I would say that this is would be unlikely, but if it did happen then maybe the meaning of the symbol would change. Until then, it's meaning is what I posted above - tolerance and acceptance of gay people in general society.

Sick people need medical/psychiatric help right? Not to be slaughtered?

What do you guys thinks about the new trend of hitmen/women being paid to gun down people in the street for money, because their target were claimed to be drug users/dealers? These hitmen/women are paid by government agencies (by proxy) or simply gang members who want competitive dealers out of the way with no hassle.

Can you understand that this vigilante hitman movement is a simple knock on effect of Duterte's attitude toward drugs, and is totally unregulated (many innocents are killed this way)? Would you like to live in a place where people are being paid to slaughter their fellow citizens in the street?

To clarify, I think Duterte has some of the worst combinations of personality traits in a leader. He seems intolerant, ignorant, mean and arrogant. He seems like a terrible person to be running a country.

On the other hand, I can see why he has popularity in the country - The Philipines has a very serious drug problem, and to the average voter, Duterte's strategy of "Killing all the drug users and vendors in cold blood" seems like a good idea. After all, it's an efficient way of ridding the country of the drug problem, right?

Wrong.

Pretty much all modern research suggest that severe drug problems are a symptom of societal issues. There will undoubtably be reasons why so many people in the Philipines use and sell meth, for example, the main one being that there aren't many other ways of making good money. The leaders of countries need to start tackling the underlying social issues that cause the symptoms of drug addiction, rather than just trying to kill everyone involved. To a lesser extent, the same could be said of Western countries (UK/US etc) than imprison individuals for drug possession (Yeah, they're not killing them, but they are locking them up for victimless crimes).

His tactics have huge problems, one of the most obvious being that innocent people can be shot in cold blood, then framed as drug users (with no real evidence apart from a hand written sign on their corpse telling people they took drugs... yeah sounds legit  ). Another problem is that his violent massacre is taking out users as well as dealers.

While I wouldn't even condone the assassination of dealers, assassinating users/addicts just seems like an incredibly fucking medieval thing to be doing in this day and age. Morally, what have these people done wrong? They haven't hurt anyone, stolen anything, yet because they choose to partake in drug use they are sentenced to death? These people need fucking HELP, not to be shot in a motorcycle driveby by a hitman, accepting money indirectly from the government (yes this really is happening, saw a documentary interviewing hitmen/women that were doing exactly this...)

Duterte sounds like he's on the way to becoming another Pol Pot or Hitler, simply dictating his own narrative with a closed mind, and with little empathy or understanding towards the citizens he's killing.

Haha you seem to have got the wrong end of the stick here. That symbol is not the "official sodomite flag", it symbolizes the pride of LGBT individuals that feel they should be treated equally, as members of the society they belong to, without predujice or hate, regardless of their sexual preferences. Therefore it is not a "universal sign of ignorance and hate", it is in fact a peaceful sign of "acceptance and tolerance".

The "liberal scams and hostile social engineering used by the corrupt elite" is a totally different issue, I don't see how they apply here.

Interestingly, the word "sodomy" can mean many different things - the most popular definition is simply "anal sex between two men", however it can also mean anal sex between a man and a woman, sex between two females, sex with animals (beastiality) or even normal sexual conduct between a man and a woman with no planned procreation (anal, blowjobs, vaginal sex with condoms or even pulling out before ejaculation). I'm assuming here that you're referencing the more popular definition of sodomy - two males bumming.

My question to you is, how exactly is this symbol oppressing you and why do you think you have any say in what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home? Is that not none of your goddamn business?

I mean I'm heterosexual, and I don't enjoy watching men kiss in the street. I also don't enjoy watching gay porn. I also get irritated with overly "camp" gay men. But who the fuck am I to tell them that it's not allowed? I certainly don't think that these people are oppressing me. If I don't like what I'm seeing then I simply don't look, or walk away, no big deal.

What's your problem with all this?