when i became a man i put away childish things
Like the very notion of empathy, which is the only thing that differs us from animals? And you let your brain away too, with the culture and the education ^^ Socialist here, though after some times on this forum I feel like people (at least Americans) clearly don't deserve socialism. |
|
|
|
I think gay marriages should be allowed.
Because it somekinda solves population problems in world.
I don't agree that gay marriage could solve the rapid growth of population in the world. Think of it even China with their 2 child policy won't stop that problem. And definitely gay marriage is not the solution of it and it should not be allowed. Wrong. China clearly solved its overpopulation problem, population is going to shrink as fertility rate is slightly above 1.2 Their main problem will be their aging population though. |
|
|
|
As a non American I wonder, how many delegates does Trump still need to get his nomination?
He needs 1,237 to win the nomination. He currently has 949 locked in. He needs 288 more to win, otherwise he will have trouble fighting things out at the convention. There are about 500 delegates remaining. California being the main one with 172 delegates. California awards its delegates by congressional district so it could easily be proportional amongst all the candidates. Most likely Trump will win the few large Congressional districts in the big cities but Cruz and Kashsish could win a lot of the farmland districts throughout the state. Ok so he still needs more than 50% of the remaining delegates :/ Well, we just have to hope and count on the stupidity of Americans voters ^^ You can count on the stupidity of American voters every single time. Great! Nothing to worry about then! Trump will pass  |
|
|
|
Great! So you're ok with Venezuela stoping selling oil to USA in order to keep it for themselves?
stupid question. oil accounts for 99% of venezuela's exports and they use the money they get from it to import food and medicine and all the other essentials. its like asking if i think saudi arabia should stop selling oil. they have nothing else and would die. But you agree on the fact that they have the right to chose what they want to do with it? I don't know what you're talking about here... Yes it did, before white invasion they had empires, civilizations, culture... I don't really know what you're talking about with your "black barbarism".
by blacks i mean niggers, not egyptians or carthage or whatever north african culture nigger afrocentrist weirdos have tried to appropriate for themselves Well that's already a really small part of the world you're talking about here, but I suppose you want to forget the incredible Mali empire then? They were exactly what you describe as "nigger". They had a constructed government, culture, art, developped social policies. They were so "barbaric" that they even had a female Emperor while we were still struggling deciding if women had the right to live without a man deciding everything for her, and finally decided that no they wouldn't have such right. Here if you want to learn more:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mali_Empire "But mistress they did the same"
That's an incredible argument you got here! Others did the same so we can!
Well, just give me your adress I'll come to rape your wife and kill you so I can keep the house. After all it's what lots of people did before!
i didn't ask whether or not you thought it was a good thing, i asked why europeans are singled out for doing it. Hmm... Maybe because they're the only one alive? Who would you see who did the same things as Europeans and Americans? Nobody did the same thing. |
|
|
|
Ferocious battle involving hundreds of rioters erupts at migrant camp under Paris Metro as terrified residents film the clashes from their windows aboveWhy can't they send all these barbarians to Germany? After-all, it was the German chancellor who caused this influx by inviting the unwashed third world nationals to the European Union. I wonder why the other European leaders are not uttering a word against the dictatorial policies of Merkel. Are they afraid of her? Or are they afraid of her boyfriend (Erdogan)?
Oh hello there. Still spreading bullshit propaganda? Funny this news. What's even funnier is that it's not what happened. How do I know it? Well easy, I m French and the story was reported on the news. It was not a "terrifying riot of the migrants which scared the whole paris". It was barely 50 migrants who fought TOGETHER. No civils were injured or even threaten. That's basically even less violent than what happens after a football game...But sure it's easier to just spread and blindly believe propaganda...
French people see violence after a football game as normal. So much so they use it as some kind of Violence Richter Scale to tell themselves what is normal violence or not normal violence. That's how deeply mentally raped they have been for so many years. This will take years of therapy and deprogramming on a massive level. Generations even. Sad. Never said violence after a football game was normal, said that violence after a football game is common. Which is exactly the case.  You're only willingly misinterpreting facts again, and totally ignoring the main point of what I said. But that's all you do all the time so I'm not exactly surprised xD Mentally raped. Over and over again. Is that how Americans always do things? When they're short on arguments they just insult their opponents? Well, seems it's a win for me then. |
|
|
|
|
And let's all take a moment to appreciate how you avoided answering on the quality of the "study" you showed us and their "arguments" xD
|
|
|
|
Seems like you're not. This why you shouldn't talk about things you don't have a clue about. "Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. " http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.htmlthe global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes It means it would take 1000 years of eruption to compensate one year of human made CO2. But please, continue to show us how educated you are. So you you are telling me that they are accurately gauging every volcano on Earth including on land and under the ocean when they are only actually studying a handful of volcanoes? One of the rules in science is you need to have an appropriate sample size in order to get any kind of reasonable estimate, and they have neither. Try again comrade.They have the exact number and size of volcanoes on earth. Then they studied a volcano. Then they just made an estimation of the CO2 emited by the whole volcanoes. What's so hard to understand? Of course they're not precise! They can't be! But you're arguing they're wrong by a 10 000 order? ^^ Oh and btw I'm not your comrade, you surely don't deserve my friendship  |
|
|
|
I think gay marriages should be allowed.
Because it somekinda solves population problems in world.
There are lot other ways to solve population problems. Legalizing gay marriage create unwanted issues as well creates bad intention within human mind, though they are straight. Yeah! Unwanted issues! Like people having the freedom to do whatever they want! So unwanted violation of your rights! Much bad intention! YOu're afraid of becoming gay because gays will have the right to marry? Nothing to afraid about it. Its a natural feeling that gets created within every human. The bad emotions leads to unwanted violation. And who are you to define what's a "bad emotion" or an "unwanted violation"? |
|
|
|
Some Facts.
*Bullshit*
Here are a few facts: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/I never saw any of you give out a work showing the absence of temperature rise. Please all feel free to give out an interpretation of temperature data showing there is no temperature increase! As you said yourself Spendulus "stop avoiding direct questions" ^^ |
|
|
|
The actual satellite data sets show no statistically significant warming. In lay terms, that means no trend. Do you have any other exaggerations or mis representations of data to bring out to support your true faith and belief? Because I've got news for you. When a scientific controversy must be supported at all costs, and when that means it is necessary to use mis representation, denial, obfuscation, and ad hominem attacks to support it, as far as science is concerned, it's over for those hypotheses. But don't worry — you are NOT ALONE. There appear to be quite a few people that would believe a fantasy over facts. http://www.steynonline.com/7517/steyn-vs-the-big-climate-enforcersProf Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: "It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models).Well why don't you simply hands us the figures proving there is no warming trend? Because that's fucking easy to do no? You've got the raw data, it's a clear upper trend whatever you say. You want to deny it? Well then just check the data with regressi and plot the derivation of the temperature curve... The satellite data show no statistically significant warming in 19 years. Repeat that every night before bedtime. If you still can't sleep, should we bring you some warm milk and cookies? Ahah! You know that repeating something doesn't make it true? Wanna prove you're right? Easy enough, install Regressi and simply derivate the raw data of temperature increase. If derivate is positive, temperature goes up. If derivate is negative, it goes down. That's what NASA did and they found a positive one. If you want to prove them wrong it's fucking easy to do it. There's no need to install any special software to do linear regression. The functions are built in in Excel. One more time, The satellite data show no statistically significant warming in 19 years.Do you refute this? If so, please show your work. Otherwise, please stop trying to slide around direct questions. It does not advance the discussion. Also please try to think carefully before you post so that things you post actually make sense. Thanks. Of course I refute this xD I can't give you my work as I never had the rax data. What you gave me (a few hundreds of posts earlier) were plots of raw data not the numerical data. But I can give you a work the worldwide wommunity consideres as rather reliable: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ |
|
|
|
I think gay marriages should be allowed.
Because it somekinda solves population problems in world.
There are lot other ways to solve population problems. Legalizing gay marriage create unwanted issues as well creates bad intention within human mind, though they are straight. Yeah! Unwanted issues! Like people having the freedom to do whatever they want! So unwanted violation of your rights! Much bad intention! YOu're afraid of becoming gay because gays will have the right to marry? |
|
|
|
Nooooooooooooooo!
It's not their fault!
It's not like we went in their countries, killed and enslaved them by groups of ten thousands, then established our own governments once we freed them, then just let them corrupted governments we put in place in the first place, then finaly let them alone (something like 50 years ago, not 5 centuries) and just let them deal with our companies that were still there to take their natural ressources xD
But their is progress here, you agree with letting them alone?
they are free not to deal with our companies if they figure out how to extract "their" natural resources from the ground on their own Great! So you're ok with Venezuela stoping selling oil to USA in order to keep it for themselves? black barbarism and failure didn't begin with colonialism.
I don't know what you're talking about here... Yes it did, before white invasion they had empires, civilizations, culture... I don't really know what you're talking about with your "black barbarism". why do europeans get singled out for conquering and enslaving others when its what every race and nation has done for thousands of years?
Lol xD "But mistress they did the same" That's an incredible argument you got here! Others did the same so we can! Well, just give me your adress I'll come to rape your wife and kill you so I can keep the house. After all it's what lots of people did before! |
|
|
|
As a non American I wonder, how many delegates does Trump still need to get his nomination?
He needs 1,237 to win the nomination. He currently has 949 locked in. He needs 288 more to win, otherwise he will have trouble fighting things out at the convention. There are about 500 delegates remaining. California being the main one with 172 delegates. California awards its delegates by congressional district so it could easily be proportional amongst all the candidates. Most likely Trump will win the few large Congressional districts in the big cities but Cruz and Kashsish could win a lot of the farmland districts throughout the state. Ok so he still needs more than 50% of the remaining delegates :/ Well, we just have to hope and count on the stupidity of Americans voters ^^ |
|
|
|
Hmm... From what I read of you he's right. You said to shoot at them if they try to pass the border so they stay in their country in order to work for us without improving their life standard.
It's really close to kill or enslave no?
they have the choice to work for us or themselves, its not whites' fault that they aren't capable of building up their countries on their ownNooooooooooooooo! It's not their fault! It's not like we went in their countries, killed and enslaved them by groups of ten thousands, then established our own governments once we freed them, then just let them corrupted governments we put in place in the first place, then finaly let them alone (something like 50 years ago, not 5 centuries) and just let them deal with our companies that were still there to take their natural ressources xD But their is progress here, you agree with letting them alone? |
|
|
|
The actual satellite data sets show no statistically significant warming. In lay terms, that means no trend. Do you have any other exaggerations or mis representations of data to bring out to support your true faith and belief? Because I've got news for you. When a scientific controversy must be supported at all costs, and when that means it is necessary to use mis representation, denial, obfuscation, and ad hominem attacks to support it, as far as science is concerned, it's over for those hypotheses. But don't worry — you are NOT ALONE. There appear to be quite a few people that would believe a fantasy over facts. http://www.steynonline.com/7517/steyn-vs-the-big-climate-enforcersProf Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: "It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models).Well why don't you simply hands us the figures proving there is no warming trend? Because that's fucking easy to do no? You've got the raw data, it's a clear upper trend whatever you say. You want to deny it? Well then just check the data with regressi and plot the derivation of the temperature curve... The satellite data show no statistically significant warming in 19 years. Repeat that every night before bedtime. If you still can't sleep, should we bring you some warm milk and cookies? Ahah! You know that repeating something doesn't make it true? Wanna prove you're right? Easy enough, install Regressi and simply derivate the raw data of temperature increase. If derivate is positive, temperature goes up. If derivate is negative, it goes down. That's what NASA did and they found a positive one. If you want to prove them wrong it's fucking easy to do it. |
|
|
|
What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.
We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.
Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.
So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?
I don't know about you, but I am educated enough in science to know that man made climate change is complete horse shit. One or two big volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of humanity ever has. I don't have to believe in tinkerbell because I know it is a fairy tale. You keep clapping your hands though if it makes you feel like you are doing something. without looking it up (i'm lazy tonight) gonna state you are wrong about the comparison of man's co2 to volcanoes. However, moggie presents a different type of issue. He argues from ignorance and believes that has moral and ethical standing because of a preconceived "righteousness." Ignorance is bliss, since the devout can just take the word of the Sciencies about whatever. Think of how wonderful this is. There are no difficult issues to understand, you are simply told what to think, and if you are a good person, you obey. I know that after you think it over, you will repent of your thinkcrimes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVgl1HOxpj8I may have overstated it slightly, Yeah slightly xD That's the least you could say! Being wrong by a factor of 10 000 is not exactly a "slightly" mistake ^^ I looked at your sources a bit. And I see nothing like a demonstration. Here is the extract of your "sources": It is ten times as likely that atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, namely the warming ocean surface, as it is likely that it is coming from anthropogenic sources. The changes in CO2 track ocean surface temperature, not global carbon emissions. Burning fossil fuels is not increasing atmospheric CO2. Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been. It's a complete bold statement! I mean maybe it's right I don't know, there is 0 explanation about that. They don't say why it's "ten times likely" they don't compare the amounts emited or explain how they measured it or anything. They just say it's "ten times more likely". Am I missing anything? For me it's not exactly what I would call a scientific demonstration. There "explanation" is simply a comparison of two curves saying that in fact... Well sun activity impacts CO2 realease? Yeah well we already knew it thanks, that's not the point! The point is to know if man made CO2 is negligeable, not to know if rise of sun activity will rise CO2 level! |
|
|
|
What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.
We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.
Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.
So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?
The science behind it may be science, but a lay-person's faith in it would be religious expression. By being sceptical and questioning the self-styled experts in the field, lay people are actually being more scientific than they would otherwise be if they blindly believed the paid scientific professionals. Besides, from a philosophical point of view, science is a personal endeavour where a person seeks objective knowledge about the world. Even incredulity or emotional reactions could be thought of as a kind of experimentation, where the participants exert pressure on the system, and then they find out what happens in response. The beginnings of science was not with a rigid caste system in which only some could voice an opinion on a problem. Quite the contrary. Look at Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, Kepler. The main difference being that those men were educated in the field of science which they were talking about.... Thanks to the internet, every random dumbass can just spray their bullshit at the face of everyone without having to have even studied the subject they're talking about. Which is exactly what's happening with climate change. Millions of people like you suddenly became both climatologist and chimists xD |
|
|
|
What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.
We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.
Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.
So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?
The science behind it may be science, but a lay-person's faith in it would be religious expression. By being sceptical and questioning the self-styled experts in the field, lay people are actually being more scientific than they would otherwise be if they blindly believed the paid scientific professionals.
Besides, from a philosophical point of view, science is a personal endeavour where a person seeks objective knowledge about the world. Even incredulity or emotional reactions could be thought of as a kind of experimentation, where the participants exert pressure on the system, and then they find out what happens in response. There is a difference between discussing the result and refusing to look at the evidences provided by a worldwide scientific community xD |
|
|
|
What I don't understand is how Climate change has become a social and popular question.
We have nothing to do on that question. This is not our business.
Are people arguing in their daily life of the relevance of using ethanol as a solvant in an organic synthesis? No of course not! They don't give a fuck and even if they'd do they know they don't have the skills required to understand fully the process. They let this question for the chimists.
So why don't we just stop discussing climate change and listen to the scientists results?
I don't know about you, but I am educated enough in science to know that man made climate change is complete horse shit. One or two big volcanic eruption puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of humanity ever has. I don't have to believe in tinkerbell because I know it is a fairy tale. You keep clapping your hands though if it makes you feel like you are doing something. Seems like you're not. This why you shouldn't talk about things you don't have a clue about. "Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. " http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.htmlthe global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes It means it would take 1000 years of eruption to compensate one year of human made CO2. But please, continue to show us how educated you are. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
