Videos (141) | Sift Talk (25) | Blogs (13) | Comments (1000) |
Videos (141) | Sift Talk (25) | Blogs (13) | Comments (1000) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
New Adventures of He Man | A New Beginning | Full Episode
Um, What?
He-Man in Space?
World’s Largest Optical Lens
Dianna has some big lenses herself. Um, her eyes are up here...
Why Shell's Marketing is so Disgusting
No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.
Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.
Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.
Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.
Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.
You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.
Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.
You asked at least 3 questions and all fo them very much leading questions.
To the first 2, my response is that it's only the extremely fortunate few that have the kind of financial security and freedom to make those adjustments, so lucky for them.
Your last question is:
do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?
Your question demands as part of it's base assumption that fossil fuels are inherently immoral or something and customers are clearly the victims. I reject that.
The entirety of the modern western world stands atop the usage of fossil fuels. If we cut ALL fossil fuel usage out tomorrow, mass global starvation would follow within a year, very nasty wars would rapidly follow that.
The massive gains in agricultural production we've seen over the last 100 years is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. Most importantly for efficiency in equipment run on fossil fuels, but also importantly on fertilizers produced by fossil fuels. Alternatives to that over the last 100 years did not exist. If you think Stalin and Mao's mass starvations were ugly, just know that the disruptions they made to agriculture were less severe than the gain/loss represented by fossil fuels.
All that is to state that simply saying don't use them because the future consequences are bad is extremely naive. The amount of future harm you must prove is coming is enormous, and the scientific community as represented by the IPCC hasn't even painted a worst case scenario so catastrophic.
Michelin Introduce Puncture Proof Airless Tire
Um? What about driving through water? Snow? Loose gravel? I have to imagine that they are going to pick up and potentially throw loose material in odd ways. I am all for the airless tires but I am pretty sure they haven't engineered a way to avoid the need for sidewalls.
It's Not Okay
Lol. Even you aren't ignorant or dumb enough to not know this is a well known white supremacist racial hate slogan, not an equality movement slogan, not a non inflammatory statement.
Edit...when you see bald white guys wearing t-shirts printed with "14-18-88" you would insist they're just clean cut math enthusiasts. There is none so blind as he who will not see.
Um....take another English class Vlad, I think you mean nuts infer hate, because you just called your own cohorts nuts. It's crystal clear they are implying hate with these pro white fliers being posted only in minority areas and schools, not predominantly white areas and schools....you need #10 RWNJ goggles to hide that fact from yourself.
Rightwing cowardly assholes can't stand behind their own hate in public, but revel in it when they're together in private. You're cohorts are afraid to admit who they are, so afraid of everything they're afraid of themselves, or at least they're afraid of the repercussions of exposure. That's why they can't admit what's obvious to everyone who isn't delusionally biased....that they're racist.
Remember, it's RWNJ's like yourself that totally lost their shit and continue to be triggered today over "black lives matter", insisting it's a racist movement and slogan...now they want to hide their obvious racist intent by pretending they're emulating that social justice movement when challenged...it's laughably transparent.
I guess you didn't watch this video, because there was plenty of right wing fear there....ending in the creation of your fear...."it's not ok to be white"...a Fox news created slogan you were terrified by. Boy do they have your number.
You are helping them spread the white supremacist message by only looking at life with your blinders and right wing goggles on.
What is hateful? Nuts imply hate. Projection???
Leftest snowflake nuts jobs are afraid of everything.
US Navy "Sky Penis" Cockpit Audio (released 5/14/19)
"Law" @bobknight33 ? And not "sexuality"? Um.....OK.....You do you.
How Computers Work: A Journey Into the Walk-Through Computer
[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]
The Robots are coming for Washington State Apples
Washington state apples? Um....that's New Zealand, not Washington.
Not sure how this could work on established trees unless they're espaliered.
Riverdance first performance, was as an intermission act
Um, it says 90s in YouTube.
BSR (Member Profile)
Um....I have no hair. Now I feel like a Jewish kid on Xmas.
You've been deprived.
Constipation Blues was funny too, but not the hit I Put A Spell On You was. That was a good performance, he brought all his props for Arsenio. Love the smoking scepter.
Why not. Let your hair down.
What an awesome clip. I don't think I've heard of Screamin Jay Hawkins before but, if I did I forgot. I liked the accidental fire. Nice save on his part.
Honest Government Ad | Climate Change Policy
You misread. I'm blaming radicals for drinking mountain dew, which hypes them up to the point of being ready for race war. It doesn't make radicals, it energizes them.
Sadly, no. The right has abused and ignored their constitutional duties as a party, handing supreme power to one man over and over while ignoring and actively hiding his multiple crimes and appearances of crimes and actively obstructing the investigations at every turn.....advancing their cause so no investigation should be undertaken, no charges levied, and certainly no punishments for what are real, treasonous felonies....dozens of convictions about subversion....collusion....but you still believe they are the patriots?! You still claim they care about the constitution, as they wipe their asses with it?! Explain.
Come on, Bob, it's ok to admit they aren't perfect and that you don't support at least some of their crimes. I wish you would consider how you would feel if Obama stayed a third term (which Trump hints might be his plan often) and/or bypassed congress to add trillions to the deficit while cutting the military by over half (note, Obama increased military funding consistently, contrary to the lies Fox and Trump tell you).
Democrats want to save the union, granted some of their ideas are poorly thought out, republicans from the top down are itching for a civil war because your side believes the other side isn't armed and will be easy to eradicate.....they're wrong, and totally unpatriotic.
Bob, it's not "one proud American", it's tens of thousands who aren't proud, anyone who MAGAs is saying America isn't great now, and right wingers want to completely reimagine the country as not a melting pot, not a place of refuge, not a place of fairness and opportunities, but a place where rich get richer and the poor pay for it, and where white privilege is codified law, nothing else really seems to matter any more than as a rallying cry, or Republicans would have funded the wall when they had total control.
Um....when republicans step out, it's quite often with a gun or swastika, when democrats do it, it's with an egg or a paper peace sign. Hardly the same thing.
Also, tell that to Senator Stewart Smallie (among others)....he was good enough, he was smart enough, and dog gone it, people liked him, but because of one non G rated joke as a comedian, he resigned....never in million years would republican resign for any such thing, one became president by bragging about actions similar but 100 times worse. Democrats actually hold themselves to their own standards, not Republicans, not anymore, not one tiny bit...
Good people on both sides. Yeah....except good people don't stand with Nazis and white supremacists....EVER.
Edit: again, since you persist in your insistence that the left is worse than the right, I ask you to list the left wing terrorists of late....because we can list quite a few right wing terrorists since Trump was elected, including multiple mass murderers and multiple mail bombers.
Blaming Mountain Dew drinkers as radicals.
Brilliant logic buddy.
Nope. We have folks that believe in the Constitution and see it being ignored by 1/2 people and the Democratic party is right there trying to tear it down. Flaws and all, this is still the greatest country in the world and your side wants to destroy it.
So when 1 proud American snaps, Its understandable, not tolerable and they should be punished.
When your side steps out, all is OK. They are advancing the cause. No punishment should be taken.
Hail Satan?-Trailer
So, you admit Christianity has the same apparent issue of using a label that doesn't match the group (i think you admit Christians are fans of Christ, but not followers of his teachings), and there being no set definition of what a Christian (or Satanist) is exactly....then for no reason you give Christians a pass and continue to claim this group is doing it wrong. Um.......
(Edit: redacted -I misread)
I repeat, because their actions are political has no bearing on their beliefs which were barely discussed in the video. You assume they are secular and not religious, #notmysatanists, because someone else postulated that idea, not because they said it, right?
" I believe what is widely understood to be Christianity and the actual definition don't resemble each other"
I'd largely agree, although I think Christianity is widely understood to mean follower of Christ and the actual definition does match that far. I see Christianity in NA having a different problem with there being so many different opinions/beliefs of what following Christ should look like as to make the term almost meaningless.
To your point about widely understood versus understood correctly, good communication isn't just about speaking accurately, but being understood accurately.
ChaosEngine very succinctly made this point, National Socialism might accurately describe your group, but the public is going to misunderstand it, and I don't think yelling loudly that everyone else is wrong really helps.
Hail Satan?-Trailer
No, it's not. You understand it, so did most people who listened. It's perfectly fine communication and that communication was clear about what they're doing. You may not like the fact they're using the system as they are, but their communication wasn't lacking imo.
If Christianity can abandon every tenet of the bible and stop following it's teachings yet continue to claim to believe in and worship Christ in order to receive the benefits of being a religion, bearing more false witness in the effort, Satanism can do the same without the lies and duplicity.
Um....many anti vaxers say EXACTLY that.
When words are misused by those attempting to control and harm you, misusing them in the same way to stop that is perfectly acceptable to me, especially when you're honest about it like they are (but Christianity isn't). The pretend lava daddy is just as valid as the pretend sky daddy and deserves exactly the same special protections and exemptions....none at all.
That mission/purpose is clear enough, the miscommunication is in calling that 'Satanism'. To repeat myself, "Satanism" has been well understood to mean the worship of the Abrahamic center of all evil Satan. Calling your movement 'Satanism', and then clarifying that you neither believe in nor worship that Satan and your movement is an entirely separate and distinct secular one is deliberate bad communication.
It's like going around calling my group a antivaxxers, but then clarifying we don't actually oppose vaccinations, we are just against the high profit margins of pharma corps.
When words already have strong definitions deliberately failing to use them and choosing your own new definition isn't clever, it's just bad communication.
VFX Artist Shows You How Much Water is Actually on Earth
Limited Edition Hoodies - They are only going to make as many as they can sell.... Um..., Okay...?
Trump publicly blows his cover for national emergency
Um...that's RINO-republican in name only, and clearly includes Trump who doesn't resemble real Republican ideals anywhere near as much as Obama did.
The problem is it depends on which Bob we have on any particular day. Definitions, like everything else in the Trumpian world, are fluid and only definable by Trump, definitions that apply only until he changes them, sometimes in the same sentence.
@newtboy
@Drachen_Jager
@simonm
@bobknight33
You guys are letting him get away with too many ill defined terms.
@bobknight33 needs to define
Republican-
RHINO (dependant on Republican definition) -
Corrupt-
"Lose" in the political sense (as in "Trump does not back down or lose much")
"Back down" same comment
Swamp
--------------
From my point of view, the definitions would be as follows, but I doubt he would agree, so the definition s actually need to come from him if there's ever to be any REAL communication here.
Republican- Fiscal conservative, functional but minimal government, patriotic and supports the democratic process over communism, law and order, often (but not necessarily) religious
RHINO (dependent on Republican definition) - Ron Paul and Ron Paul Jr. - Libertarians in the thinking of Ayn Rand who actually consider themselves the "true republicans" but are outside the mainstream
Corrupt- Promoting self interest over that of the people you are meant to govern - in Trump's case, I'd say it means "anyone who doesn't agree with me"
"Lose" in the political sense (as in "Trump does not back down or lose much") - Not passing legislation with any staying power, being defeated in the Legislative Branch after something is passed (See the Affordable Care Act for the opposite example)
not "Back[ing] down" same comment - I'm going to break the law or established political norms
UNTIL WE CAN AGREE ON TERMS, THERE WON'T BE ANY ARGUMENT OF SUBSTANCE BECAUSE YOU SIMPLY WON'T BE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THINGS