Japanese people will be extinct soon, because of their own arrogance, pride and stupidity. Ever hear of Fuckushima? Yeah, you guys fucked yourselves large. So once there are no more Japs, then there will be no more racist cosplay feelings towards us whiteys.  Hair falling out yet? Actually in terms of dislike level, amongs all Asians Chinese have more higher dislike level towards westerners.  You are trolling right kajune? If not... . . . . . ...  |
|
|
|
There are fates worse than death.
Death by mau mau? |
|
|
|
New Zealand legally recognises animals as 'sentient' beings
Bolt to the head. No pain, just delicious tender meat. Circle of life bitches, kudos to the human race for getting to the top of the food-chain. |
|
|
|
I never got into sci-fi as a kid so I never paid any attention to star wars and star trek. Just seemed so unrealistic. I was more of the saved by the bell youngster.
You need to stimulate your imagination. Drop some acid and watch 2001: A Space Odyssey. Then watch Alien, Blade Runner, Akira, Wall-E and Spaceballs. Then get permanently pissed-off over how shitty most modern sci-fi films are. |
|
|
|
May he rest in peace. I would have gone further and exterminate his entire species.  +1 all those fuckers should burn in hell. Apart from the leader; Brian Blessed is a fucking legend. His voice was the only reason I didn't burn down the cinema that showed me the shit-covered epileptic fit that was the "Phantom Menace". |
|
|
|
|
^^ Bahahaaa amazing! Looks like I need to step up my cosplay game if I'm gonna compete with these guys!
|
|
|
|
Are we allowed to cosplay as non-human anime characters? That is ok because there will be no harm done to Anime and to Asians. So which stage of Tetsuo's mutation into a blob is it OK for me to cosplay? What about "hybrid" characters, such as the "jyujinkai" from Urotsukidoji? Like the guy on the left:  Fair game? |
|
|
|
I think you're describing the "official" reason for the taxes, as a means to curb fossil fuel usage. This makes sense, but I was more interested in the "ulterior motive" that many climate change skeptics believe the governments have for these taxes.
Care to share what that ulterior motive may be? I don't know, that's why I made this thread! |
|
|
|
^^Yep, he's totally close-minded and incapable of taking on any information - I've explained to him a couple of times that evolution and the emergence of life itself are 2 different things, yet he still doesn't distinguish them. Doing so wouldn't even violate his beliefs/ethics, so I don't know why he doesn't learn. I don't think I've ever seen him admit he was wrong, ever.  |
|
|
|
Are we allowed to cosplay as non-human anime characters? No monsters live in Japan since you guys got rid of Godzilla, right? And the cats and dogs look the same over there as anywhere else? If monsters are fair game, which they should be because they're not Asian, at what point during Tetsuo Shima's transformation into a giant blob is it acceptable for me to dress up as him? Here?  Here?  There yet?  Surely by now...?  I really need to know, the last thing I want is to destroy the whole anime industry by cosplaying an unacceptable transformation state, please advise! |
|
|
|
|
Nonsense, anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that the real developer was an ancient homosexual devil-worshiping tree with a penchant for anagrams: "Satanist Oak Homo"
wake up sheeple!
|
|
|
|
|
"Shadow of the Colossus" I found quite emotional, you ride round on a horse through a deserted wasteland slaying huge ancient bosses, or Colossi. After killing them though, I couldn't help feeling sad that I had destroyed such old majestic creatures.
The indie game "Journey" was also very involving. It has lovely graphics and soundtrack, and you meet up with anonymous players along the way who you can't help but make an emotional connection with, even though there is no dialogue. All in all, a beautiful, original game.
|
|
|
|
 Haha these militant veggies are pretty funny. It's natural and healthy for us to eat meat, the canine teeth in my mouth prove it. Rape is also natural. Doesn't prove anything. While rape does happen in the natural world (humans/apes/dolphins etc), we have not evolved to exhibit traits designed to facilitate rape specifically. However we have developed traits to specifically eat and digest meat, such as our teeth. Therefore I don't think it's a fair comparison. Actually our teeth are not evolved to eat meat and almost all mammals have canine teeth so this argument is completely invalid in any case. Also we have a lot of digestive similarities with animals that are herbivores. Just wanted to point out that misconception. OK, I've done some reading and it seems that yes, some mammals do have canine teeth so that argument is not as valid as I first thought. However, some of these mammals may have evolved from recent carnivores, whereas we probably evolved from recent herbivores, such as Australopithecus. So it could be a case that either these mammals have not lost the canines yet, or they use them for another function, such as fighting or tusks for display. Our digestive system as a whole has most certainly evolved to be omnivorous, not vegetarian. The human digestive tract is shorter than that of herbivores, and we have lost the function of the appendix to digest cellulose. Our ancestor Australopithecus had a big large intestine, and large flat teeth to munch and digest vegetation. Later, this species moved to the plains and began to eat meat, many scientist believe this was where our anatomy began to evolve to process meat more effectively. Meat is a more concentrated form of energy, our ancestors would gain energy more efficiently by spending an hour eating meat rather than 5 hours eating berries. There is also evidence that, more recently in history (1.8m years), our ancestors discovered how to cook meat, which is easier still to digest. Therefore, due to natural selection, our guts got smaller and we saved energy in digestion, enabling us to be more successful in survival. There is a lot of evidence that the introduction to meat eating enabled our ancestors to evolve bigger brains, and therefore able to spend less time foraging and more time to develop social structures. This would have progressed the species' intelligence. Many scientists believe that it is no coincidence that Humans are the most intelligent species, and also the only ones to cook their food. C'mon you guys. This topic is serious. Stop turning it into as religion by suggesting that something evolved. OK you bloody god-botherer, so now Evolution Theory is a religion, as well as Atheism... Please leave your ideas about the definition of religion out of unrelated threads, you're free to spout that nonsense in threads about religion. |
|
|
|
What's the benefit for governments with this hypothesis?
profit for the corporations that own them Yeah but the big oil companies are some of the richest in the world, so why penalise them while making minimal profit from much smaller renewable energy companies? Please explain what you mean. |
|
|
|
Taxation is a great way to disincentivize the purchase of a particular product that may be harmful, like tobacco or alcohol beverages, making it more expensive it is less available for people and it has to be acquired with moderation.
Gas, AFAIK, has special taxes since ever, but with all pollution we are faced with this kind of product its use has to be moderated and even made obsolete, for the energy industry to change and invest in better more clean forms of energy production in a timely manner extra taxes on gas and coal are applied.
I think you're describing the "official" reason for the taxes, as a means to curb fossil fuel usage. This makes sense, but I was more interested in the "ulterior motive" that many climate change skeptics believe the governments have for these taxes. |
|
|
|
Most climate change skeptics say the main reason for the ideology is for governments to claim more in taxes. I have two questions: A. Are there any taxes that apply to individuals? I have only found information about taxes that apply to businesses, eg. UK Climate Change LevyB. Why would TPTB need to create/take advantage of a fraudulent climate change ideology to claim more taxes? Couldn't they just claim this money by increasing traditional taxes? I would have thought that increasing traditional taxes would result in more tax income - there would be no opportunity for businesses to decrease the tax they pay by using more renewable energy, and there would be no chance of scaring away big oil companies, and the subsequent revenue they bring into the economy. It's all about creating schemes with high opportunity for graft. Although the answers to your question obviously vary by country, in the USA the standard tax schemes do not have a great deal of opportunity for direction corrupt practices - flat out sending money to your friends and such. Many "loopholes" in the tax code have been established to pay off one industry segment or another. But that pales in comparison to the opportunity for graft with the climate change schemes. Interesting point, did something like this happen with the Solyndra scandal? I don't know a lot about it, but I think there was a huge amount of grant money donated that was never paid back after the company went bankrupt. And I suppose some of this money (plus other funds?) may have been siphoned out by corrupt officials? It's not instantly obvious to me why the opportunity for graft would be so much higher with CC schemes, maybe because of the hysteria surround CC and because it's a relatively new issue? I need to do some reading up on this, thanks for the prompt. |
|
|
|
i thought the reason was to pay for and force expensive unpopular unnecessary renewables on us
What's the benefit for governments with this hypothesis? |
|
|
|
Haha these militant veggies are pretty funny. It's natural and healthy for us to eat meat, the canine teeth in my mouth prove it. Rape is also natural. Doesn't prove anything. While rape does happen in the natural world (humans/apes/dolphins etc), we have not evolved to exhibit traits designed to facilitate rape specifically. However we have developed traits to specifically eat and digest meat, such as our teeth. Therefore I don't think it's a fair comparison. Actually our teeth are not evolved to eat meat and almost all mammals have canine teeth so this argument is completely invalid in any case. Also we have a lot of digestive similarities with animals that are herbivores. Just wanted to point out that misconception. OK, I've done some reading and it seems that yes, some mammals do have canine teeth so that argument is not as valid as I first thought. However, some of these mammals may have evolved from recent carnivores, whereas we probably evolved from recent herbivores, such as Australopithecus. So it could be a case that either these mammals have not lost the canines yet, or they use them for another function, such as fighting or tusks for display. Our digestive system as a whole has most certainly evolved to be omnivorous, not vegetarian. The human digestive tract is shorter than that of herbivores, and we have lost the function of the appendix to digest cellulose. Our ancestor Australopithecus had a big large intestine, and large flat teeth to munch and digest vegetation. Later, this species moved to the plains and began to eat meat, many scientist believe this was where our anatomy began to evolve to process meat more effectively. Meat is a more concentrated form of energy, our ancestors would gain energy more efficiently by spending an hour eating meat rather than 5 hours eating berries. There is also evidence that, more recently in history (1.8m years), our ancestors discovered how to cook meat, which is easier still to digest. Therefore, due to natural selection, our guts got smaller and we saved energy in digestion, enabling us to be more successful in survival. There is a lot of evidence that the introduction to meat eating enabled our ancestors to evolve bigger brains, and therefore able to spend less time foraging and more time to develop social structures. This would have progressed the species' intelligence. Many scientists believe that it is no coincidence that Humans are the most intelligent species, and also the only ones to cook their food. |
|
|
|
Most climate change skeptics say the main reason for the ideology is for governments to claim more in taxes. I have two questions: A. Are there any taxes that apply to individuals? I have only found information about taxes that apply to businesses, eg. UK Climate Change LevyB. Why would TPTB need to create/take advantage of a fraudulent climate change ideology to claim more taxes? Couldn't they just claim this money by increasing traditional taxes? I would have thought that increasing traditional taxes would result in more tax income - there would be no opportunity for businesses to decrease the tax they pay by using more renewable energy, and there would be no chance of scaring away big oil companies, and the subsequent revenue they bring into the economy. |
|
|
|
Since when does gravity act sideways? You would have a point if the girders flew straight up, or hovered in the air. That would be against gravity. But they went sideways, so that's not against gravity.
There are many ways in which vertical momentum can be transferred into lateral speed. Here's one:
Notice how Bob travels as far laterally as his maximum height when airborne, even without the help of his skateboard. Does this break the laws of physics?
(Of course this is an optimum transfer of energy from vertical to horizontal due to the curved ramp, but it still shows that such a thing is possible. I don't see any explosives attached to him.)
Bob doesn't weigh 4 tons, and he didn't travel over 500 feet and he has the assistance of bearings. The mass of the object is the most important factor in the calculation (which you are conveniently ignoring). I am providing fundamental physical calculations to show the force required. You are providing anecdotes. Please excuse me for not being convinced. Just scale it up and the same thing will happen. If Bob did weigh 4 tons, and the peak of his height was ~1,300 feet, then he most certainly would travel well over 500 feet laterally. The mass is irrelevant because we don't have to factor in the work to get the 4 ton weight up to an altitude of 1,300 feet (that was done by cranes when the building was built). Even if he weighed a million tonnes, the extra momentum of such a weight would carry him a similar distance laterally (assuming it was possible to build a vert ramp that could handle a million tonne skateboarder). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
