It's very true. I like Rammstein, but when you hear (or read) the English-translated versions of their songs, they are so laughable.

Laughable. First you quote from a site that anyone would recognize as 100% pushing it's own agenda, then you fail to see that the site you are referencing is happy to toss terms like apex predator around. The very definition of Apex Predator is a predator at the top of a food chain.

If you bothered to learn anything other than regurgitate information that is basically dogma that they want you to spread, you could have easily clicked on one of the links at the bottom of the paper you reference, links that blow gaping holes into the 'science' that supports yours viewpoint.

Here is one: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/9/E796.long

The scientist used the same methodology and proved that in a REEF environment, Humans ARE apex predators. Why doesn't your dogmatic site list competitive theories? Does it not bother you that they are giving you information designed to influence others into following your beliefs without bothering to suggest counter-theories?

Personally, I consider both studies to be flawed, as we developed into an apex predator through use of tools. We trump other apex predators by either outsmarting them, using tools to defeat them (weapons,traps), or by changing their environment to suit ours (domestication, eradication).

For someone who is telling others to think outside the box, you have buried yourself IN the box on this issue. That's perfectly fine if you like it, but don't expect to not be called to task for it.

As far as morality goes, I know at least one of the two vegans here absolutely supports the development of new technological terrors (heh) that are designed to kill other humans. Since we are designing weapons to kill other humans, doesn't that go directly against the vegan outlook of do no harm to other sentient species for our own benefit? Eh, @transmorpher?

The GOP never to this point kowtowed to that part of the base anyway until they decided to attempt to harness the energy of that faction to the point that this faction has a stranglehold of the party, and yet are wholly ignorant on the issues. We're talking about people who hold up signs that read "Keep your government hands off my medicare" caliber people. Or people who think Obama isn't an American. Or people who think Obama is "a complete socialized take over of health care". Stuff like that which is so obviously untrue, it's laughable.

And I want to be clear. I'm not accusing the right of having a monopoly on stupid people in their base. There's PLENTY of stupid liberals. The difference is the Democratic party is doing a far better job of keeping their idiots supporting them without enacting what those idiots want or succumbing to their idiocy.

Here's proof - how many times do you see Democratic leaders constantly say crap like George W. Bush is a war criminal for Iraq? Name a Democratic presidential candidate who actually has said over and over again that Ted Cruz isn't a US citizen? Donald Trump, the current GOP frontrunner, over and over again insists Obama isn't a US citizen, as have many many Republican Congressmen.

When the GOP signed the deal with the devil so to speak by trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement, this was the inevitable outcome. The Tea Party has been hijacked twice by my count because the people within it are so incredibly ignorant, they don't seem to realize what they stand for. It was Libertarian in the beginning both socially and economically. Then it got hijacked to become more socially conservative and economically conservative. Now, it's been hijacked by Donald Trump, who nobody actually even knows what he is socially or economically at this point overall.

Why did this happen? Because GOP support is so contaminated and dominated by so much ignorance, you can have a TV personality say a bunch of stupid crap they want to hear but is certifiably absurd, that he can become the front runner. Building a wall to keep the Mexicans out, no matter how you feel about illegal immigration as far as ideals go, is simply not a practical solution to stop illegal immigration. You can't make Mexico pay for a wall even if you built it. Obama wasn't born in Kenya. Replacing Obamacare with something "terrific" is NOT a policy proposal; it's non-specific anti-Obama BS to make people who hate Obama love you. He could replace it with "Trumpcare" which could be basically Obamacare, and that could be "something terrific" for all you know.

Trump and Cruz don't exist without the Tea Party, and the Tea Party wouldn't be a thing if the GOP didn't decide to eventually attempt to galvanize it. Well, mission accomplished, but you're never going to get the support of the growing minority segments of the population. You've forfeited the support of moderates like myself, too. And young people by enlarge are rejecting this version of the GOP big time. Women are increasingly rejecting it, too.

Your second point... Umm, big fat no.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/21/the-last-presidential-candidate-who-was-as-unpopular-as-donald-trump-david-duke/

Why is there so much nuclear waste? Because we have so many people living in artificial environments that require tons of power.

Why is the Colorado river becoming almost drained and getting worse each year? Because of climate change, yes, but primarily because we have millions of people living in desert regions and agricultural crops like almonds that require laughable tons of water. Most of those almonds are turned into flour and milk products because people refuse to eat other food, or can't because they should be dead due to allergies.

Why are we overfishing and using such harmful methods as trawling? Because we have too many people that want a specific kind of food or can't afford a different type of food.

Could we switch everyone to insect proteins or other radical foods like spirulina? Yes, if you want riots. The technology doesn't exist that can make sustainable foods taste the same and people would go apeshit.

So to sum up, yes, we could feed people without damaging the environment, if you could get people to agree to it. Think of trying to force vegans to chomp on insects. As far as habitats, not so much. We don't have the room for the sheer numbers of people without either doing away with food producing land, destroying existing ecosystems like the rainforest, or putting them in artificially sustained areas like large cities or hot/cold desert terrain.

Nature used to take care of these situations via epidemics or natural selection. We have adapted to the point where we can beat most epidemics (although soon we will be hit with something bad if we look at the super bacteria we are creating) and we protect the people who should be dead against their own stupidity.

Climate change isn't going to kill this planet first, the sheer population rise will wipe it out much sooner than that. By 2030 it is estimated we will have 8+ billion people, by 2050 close to 10 billion. Exponential growth is going to suck this planet dry as a bone. The day is coming when we will HAVE to start supplementing food with non-standard food types and soon after that we will wipe out most of the living food items on this planet like a horde of locusts.

I've already discussed why helicopters and drones are good in areas of light cover while sucking in areas of high cover. They fulfill a role, but realistically they aren't always the best option.

I also explained what happens in real combat. So called fast movers end up being tasked to do roles that they were not designed for. No plan stays certain in the face of the enemy. There will come a time when the F35 is expected to provide the same type of support as the A-10 and it is going to suck hard at it, planes will be shot down and pilots will die or be captured. I suspect this will happen especially with the forces using the F35 that are not the Air Force, such as the Marines. Here is a link to the laughable failures that the Marines had with the plane, but due to the 'cannot fail' nature of the project, they certified it anyway. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not-a-big-suprise-the-marines-f-35-operational-test-wa-1730583428

Finally, the A-10 was absolutely not designed initially to be a Soviet tank killer. The initial A-X program was created because of the DISMAL performance of the Air Force and F4 in providing close air support to troops.

The Secretary of the Air Force contacted Pierre Sprey and asked him to come up with a design spec for a close air support plane. After consulting with the pilots we had in Vietnam, mostly the successful ones that were flying the prop driven A-1 Skyraider (which btw, destroyed the F4 JET in CAS operations), it was indicated that the ideal aircraft should have long loiter time, low-speed maneuverability, massive cannon firepower, and extreme survivability. It was only later, after the plane had been mostly designed, that the USAF asked that it be also tasked to counter the Soviets.

As I said, the Air Force has always hated providing CAS to the other branches of the Armed Forces. They constantly forget that you need to make a multi-role fighter actually function in a multi-role environment, preferring to think that they can buzz in and buzz out while the rest of the military does the 'dirty' work. However, they always get burned for it. Just like now, when they were fighting as hard as possible to kill the A-10, they discovered that fighting a force that is mobile and that hides in cover/cities (ISIS) is damn near impossible with fast planes/drones. Which is why they changed paths and rescheduled the A-10 phase out to 2028 (or beyond).

Wow.
True enough, nothing will likely happen because almost all of them break the law daily....
...but then to devolve into a ridiculous, factless, even actually claimless attack on Clinton (not even sure which Clinton you mean, or what 'hideous' occurrence, or when) while admitting ALL politicians do the same things is just laughable.
If you admit all politicians on both sides share Clinton's faults, why single Clinton out? Why not instead single Sanders out as the most honest and consistent politician in high office, or Warren,...or even go old school Republican with Ron Paul, who may have had some nutty ideas, but was certainly not a liar or a wind sock (turning which ever way the wind blows).

Today, US politicians won't prosecute other politicians that are in their party no matter what their crime, but are willing to prosecute those on the other side of the isle for non-crimes, which is a clear conflict of interest and proof that their prosecutions should not be in their own hands.
As a prime example, I note that there was no censure or any repercussion at all, much less prosecution for Grimm who was caught on camera making hideous death threats directly to a reporter for asking a question he didn't like. (although he was later convicted of other felonies, but not by congress)

That is the most laughably inefficient snowblower.

Which would be fine if it wasn't so one-sided, or (in lots of cases) just fucking terrible.

I mean, Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffanys? Even if that a horrible caricature, it would still be just horrible.

Funnily enough, The Last Samurai is probably the least offensive on the list since it's primarily a story ABOUT an outsider learning a new culture (the idea that he would equal one of them with a sword is laughable, but that's a standard narrative trope anyway).

If it were only a 'few entitled fucks' it would be laughable.
Sadly, those entitled fucks have become many, and have taken the reigns of the 'PC' and 'Feminist' movements, or at least have become the face of those movements if nothing more, simply by being the loudest and most vocal members of them. They have managed to wrestle control of numerous universities, and bullied the staff into capitulation or worse, out of a job for nothing more than having a differing opinion.

I wish they could simply be easily ignored, they can't.
I wish they had no power to force their viewpoint, but that's not the case.
I wish universities would stand up to them and tell them "universities are places where you are intended to be exposed to varying points of view. Any attempt to silence another's point of view is contrary to our educational mission. If you are found to be participating in a group attempting to silence others viewpoints, you will be expelled."
I wish their parents had not coddled these infants and told them they are the best person in the world and worthy of every possible benefit, with no responsibility to go along with it.

I also feel for these kids, who will have zero opportunities when they finish college because they never learned how to be adult and so they won't be employable.

The title here is bullshit. He doesn't face jail for "disagreeing" with a feminist. He's facing jail for online harassment of a feminist.

Whether the charge is warranted or not is another matter, but even in Canada, disagreeing with people is not a crime.

I tried to watch the video, but I couldn't get past the rampant MRA bullshit, so I went and researched the actual issue.

First, let's quit fucking pretending this is about equality.

Making a game about beating up Anita Sarkeesian is straight-up misogynistic assholery, and if you put said game out in a public forum, don't come crying when people publicise your fucking stupidity.

What Guthrie did was perfectly valid. If you make a public statement, be prepared to back it up. If I made a game about punching (for example) Donald Trump in the face, I would be perfectly happy for any prospective employer to see it. I would stand behind it as a parody/protest/whatever. So fuck Spurr, I have zero sympathy for him. If he doesn't want prospective employers finding out he's a misogynist asshole, he should have made an artistic statement to that effect in public.

Oh, and if you honestly can't understand the difference between a game of punching Sarkeesian or punching Thompson/Bin Laden/Bieber, you're either deluding yourself or you're an idiot.

Oh, and one more thing before I get accused of censorship. I am not in any way saying Spurr should not be able to make that game or it should be banned. I would vehemently defend his right to make and publish such a game, and my right to call him a complete fuckknuckle for doing so.

Now, as for Elliot, I've read several articles now, and all it's done is make depressed for the pathetic state of what is laughably called journalism in that none of them ACTUALLY CONTAINED THE FUCKING TWEETS!

I have no idea if what he said warranted a criminal charge or not, but on balance, his "harassment" doesn't appear to be of a threatening nature. I reserve the right to change my mind either way once I've actually read what he tweeted.

but now you're changing the question on me.

First, you asked if the company should have the right, and I answered that. But now you're asking if I have a problem with it..and obviously, I do.

Fortunately, those two things don't conflict. Nuance is a bitch, ain't it?

And I didn't ask you if it was fair to expose people. I asked you if it was fair for the poor schlub who is probably already working paycheck to paycheck to LOSE HIS JOB over this nonsense. Public ridicule is one thing...losing one's livelyhood is quite another. Not only he will be hurt for a long time over this, but his family probably will be too.

And hey, let's take this to the logical conclusion. If it's ok for his current employer to fire him. Isn't it alright for his future employers to know about this? Let's make it so that this guy should never hold a job ever again. Should his wife divorce him over this? should his kids shun him? Should he die, hungry and alone in an alley? Where's the line here?

Don't use fictional terms like "free market" and "informed consumer" and apply them to RL. It's very laughable.

If what happens on the internet is so eternal, without looking, name all the names of ALL the bad cops who have killed unarmed people in all the bad cop videos you've posted on VS. Could you even spot them in a crowd? Those cops certainly have done far more damage than this racist has, so it should be easy.

Not so eternal, now is it? You won't remember this guy in less than a year.

You're confusing justice with revenge.

Face=>Palm

So, you quote the same hyper partisan types of 'media' Fox uses and claim to not know about Fox at all...oh really. That's an impressive blindness to a political giant not only here, but in your country as well.

Yes, red herring. I'm not bothering with your over abundance of partisan right wing sites, but the one I did randomly check said almost exactly what I said, that they had found NOTHING illegal and probably could never prosecute even if they did because they could not prove she knew it was illegal, but more likely what she did wasn't illegal or improper at the time she emailed from/to her private server. I'm sure the rest told you what you say they did read in the right light...but you don't understand it's all BS. How do I know? No charges. If/when they ever found anything substantive, there will be charges pending the next day and republicans on every channel dancing a jig. Since there aren't, I know there's nothing there.

Your smattering of anti-socialist sites mean nothing. No one said socialism was perfect, just that it's part of society and railing against any instance you can identify is just plain silly. Too much socialism without incentive for production is never a good idea...but none at all is Mad Max, where your precious degree won't be helping save you from the gas boys.

Again, more crazed right wing articles making claims against the ACA mean...what? Nothing. It's survived every challenge so far, and hundreds of attempts to repeal it. It's alive and well, contrary to what you've apparently read. It could certainly be better, but obstructionists would have nothing of 'single payer' and many states have done all they can to sabotage it.

Now for Trump...not a single one of those ideas is anything more than laughable.
1. Good luck with just 'not letting any more in'. You'll need to put the entire army on the borders, and the navy off shore to even come close. Won't happen in any way. The borders and shores are too large to patrol or wall off, much less both.
2. What free Federal resources do you think exist that can round up 11 million people and move them across a border? They don't exist, and would cost the entire GDP to try if it went smoothly...and it wouldn't. And it ignores the millions of legal children left behind which would cost billions-trillions more to take care of poorly. It's just laughable.
3. Smile because you just ate a tasty turd Trump told you was the best, most luxurious chocolate mousse.
Uncontrolled immigration is an issue, but not one easily solved, certainly not with his outrageously expensive plans.

Mexico building a wall because we illegally stop trading with them? (we have a binding trade agreement that precludes any such thing by law) You've got to be kidding. First, can't and won't ever happen, it would cost us trillions to replace/lose the products and trade that come from Mexico, if we could. Second, as I mentioned, illegal. Third, what happens when other nations side with Mexico, who's being illegally and outrageously bullied and blackmailed by the US, and stop trade with us too...like China? The plan is incredibly short sighted and given no thought at all, he just assumes that if we push, they'll all lie down and cry uncle. That's not how the world works.

You claim to have a degree and work for a bank, but you have at least twice tried to pin the entire debt on Obama. Perhaps you don't understand that the debt was about 12 trillion when he took office with the economy in the toilet thanks to the kinds of ideas you support? Our last president, a "conservative" far more than doubled the debt, and took a budget surplus and made it a HUGE deficit (source-https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm) and those numbers were while keeping two wars 'off the books' that are now being paid for. EDIT: and Obama has taken an enormous deficit and shrunk it precipitously while also turning the economy around...the right way (yeah, the last pres. turned it around too) Don't get it twisted...I'm pretty disappointed in Obama, I was from the first term, but because he didn't go much farther, not because of what he did get done.

Trump's the Republican second place runner...among republicans willing to answer presidential poll questions a year before the election. He's completely toast in a general election, even if he managed to get the other 76+% of republicans to vote for him (hint...he won't), he won't get any independents.

Vulgar language?!? I re-read my entire post, and not a single vulgar word IMO. One abbreviation of a vulgar word. You have GOT to be kidding me about that. If not, wow...get off the internet NOW and never come back, it's SO not for you. ;-)

Not true, and that's why I posted the actual definition, rather than my personal feeling on what the word means. Then we can all start from the ACTUAL definition(s) rather than just making some up and arguing about it.

Your second paragraph/sentence makes no sense at all to me, and sounds like a disjointed red herring/straw man/bad attempt at creating a false argument you can shoot down....but it's so all over the place it's unfollowable.

You continue to confuse feminism with Feminism, and also continue to paint all Feminists in the worst possible light based on a few overboard examples rather than describing the normal, average Feminist.
For instance, many Feminists see pornography and prostitution as empowering and taking control of their own sexuality, and it was actually prudish anti-feminist men who tried to censor it in the courts.

In fact, there ARE many people in the civilized world who still think women don't deserve the same rights as men in many areas, and insist they are unable to perform tasks men can perform, must be coddled and subservient, and are lesser beings based purely on gender, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It's only because of this continuing misunderstanding on your part that you claim anyone said anything like "The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank... "...you are again confusing feminist with Feminist, and using the wrong one. We don't have Feminist advocacy to thank, we do however have feminist advocacy to thank for the advancements in women's rights...it's what the word means.


It doesn't sound at all like you 'appreciate the attempt at consensus building', or even understood my point, since you continue to conflate feminism with Feminism. I can't be certain, but it seems you are doing that intentionally in order to argue a moot point.



EDIT:sorry, I thought I quoted you @gorillaman, so I'll cut and paste....

gorillaman said:
Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

I agree completely, complaining about the flag, while I agree with wanting it taken down, seems like a ridiculously misplaced sentiment. I don't understand how that's the resolution people collectively came to in response to the deaths of innocents.
I do feel the flag is a symbol that does support an underlying system of hate, though, but in the context of the murders it probably has a laughable 0.00001% of jack-shit to do with them.
I'm sure our opinions are divided on what we should do to fix the situation as a people, but I think we both agree that there are better places to look for an appropriate solution.