This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - challengerX
Pages: 1 ... 128112821283 12841285 ... 1397
38461
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:37:06 PM »
Fucking good job man.
Don't pay attention to these losers, they'll do anything to try and put a frown on your face.
38462
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:28:39 PM »
You linked me to a forum post by a user named SoulSkill.
Which follows quite easily to this:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/
I saw, but the fact that challenger thinks he's proving me wrong (even though all I said was merely an estimation, not even a claim) is still stunning. Firstly, there is no concrete time line we're dealing with. Just because half of all US jobs are vulnerable doesn't mean we're going to lose half of all US jobs. Secondly, we're looking at a logarithmic pattern (really a bell shape if you include the first half) where the rate of automation of jobs will slow down as you begin to deal with harder and more complex jobs. You can't honestly believe we'll hit a point where we'll only have a small percentage left any time in the next one hundred years. Technology may be speeding up, but society still always overestimates how fast technology is actually developing. Thirdly, you need more than one study to validate something as ground shaking as that. I'm not saying it isn't reliable, but large claims need larger evidence.
>A THOUSAND YEARS
>half of US jobs are vulnerable to automation
I'll let you do the math.
1. *a few hundred to a thousand years
2. Do you know what a log function looks like? The rate decays over time. If you lose 50% in 30 years, that doesn't mean you'll lose another 50% the next 30 years.
3. Again, being vulnerable to automation =/= becoming automated
4. Again, you need more than one study to validate a large claim
You can't just blow past everything I say and repeat your previous point.
If 50% of jobs are vulnerable now, it's not going to take anywhere close to a thousand years to automate the majority of jobs.
*sigh*
It's ok, I know you don't understand.
Take a look at 50 years ago, or even a hundred.
Exponential trends (in real life) flat off, challenger. They don't just fly up with no end, generally they turn into logs as the rate continuously slows down.
Right. From thousands of years ago where the bow and arrow was the pinnacle of weaponry, where a few hundred years ago flying machines were completely ridiculous, where decades ago there were no treatments for certain diseases, you have the audacity to say humanity will come to a standstill? That progress will all but stop completely because "trends flat off".
38463
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:22:48 PM »
Well after they did such a fantastic job with the Winter Olympics.
38464
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:18:50 PM »
You linked me to a forum post by a user named SoulSkill.
Which follows quite easily to this:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/
I saw, but the fact that challenger thinks he's proving me wrong (even though all I said was merely an estimation, not even a claim) is still stunning. Firstly, there is no concrete time line we're dealing with. Just because half of all US jobs are vulnerable doesn't mean we're going to lose half of all US jobs. Secondly, we're looking at a logarithmic pattern (really a bell shape if you include the first half) where the rate of automation of jobs will slow down as you begin to deal with harder and more complex jobs. You can't honestly believe we'll hit a point where we'll only have a small percentage left any time in the next one hundred years. Technology may be speeding up, but society still always overestimates how fast technology is actually developing. Thirdly, you need more than one study to validate something as ground shaking as that. I'm not saying it isn't reliable, but large claims need larger evidence.
>A THOUSAND YEARS
>half of US jobs are vulnerable to automation
I'll let you do the math.
1. *a few hundred to a thousand years
2. Do you know what a log function looks like? The rate decays over time. If you lose 50% in 30 years, that doesn't mean you'll lose another 50% the next 30 years.
3. Again, being vulnerable to automation =/= becoming automated
4. Again, you need more than one study to validate a large claim
You can't just blow past everything I say and repeat your previous point.
If 50% of jobs are vulnerable now, it's not going to take anywhere close to a thousand years to automate the majority of jobs.
*sigh*
It's ok, I know you don't understand. Take a look at 50 years ago, or even a hundred.
38465
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:16:12 PM »
38466
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:12:10 PM »
You linked me to a forum post by a user named SoulSkill.
Which follows quite easily to this:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/
I saw, but the fact that challenger thinks he's proving me wrong (even though all I said was merely an estimation, not even a claim) is still stunning. Firstly, there is no concrete time line we're dealing with. Just because half of all US jobs are vulnerable doesn't mean we're going to lose half of all US jobs. Secondly, we're looking at a logarithmic pattern (really a bell shape if you include the first half) where the rate of automation of jobs will slow down as you begin to deal with harder and more complex jobs. You can't honestly believe we'll hit a point where we'll only have a small percentage left any time in the next one hundred years. Technology may be speeding up, but society still always overestimates how fast technology is actually developing. Thirdly, you need more than one study to validate something as ground shaking as that. I'm not saying it isn't reliable, but large claims need larger evidence.
>A THOUSAND YEARS
>half of US jobs are vulnerable to automation
I'll let you do the math.
1. *a few hundred to a thousand years
2. Do you know what a log function looks like? The rate decays over time. If you lose 50% in 30 years, that doesn't mean you'll lose another 50% the next 30 years.
3. Again, being vulnerable to automation =/= becoming automated
4. Again, you need more than one study to validate a large claim
You can't just blow past everything I say and repeat your previous point.
If 50% of jobs are vulnerable now, it's not going to take anywhere close to a thousand years to automate the majority of jobs. There are a lot of variables sure, but we're factoring in what is most likely to happen under the circumstances we can foresee.
38467
« on: October 28, 2014, 07:00:26 PM »
You linked me to a forum post by a user named SoulSkill.
Which follows quite easily to this:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/
I saw, but the fact that challenger thinks he's proving me wrong (even though all I said was merely an estimation, not even a claim) is still stunning. Firstly, there is no concrete time line we're dealing with. Just because half of all US jobs are vulnerable doesn't mean we're going to lose half of all US jobs. Secondly, we're looking at a logarithmic pattern (really a bell shape if you include the first half) where the rate of automation of jobs will slow down as you begin to deal with harder and more complex jobs. You can't honestly believe we'll hit a point where we'll only have a small percentage left any time in the next one hundred years. Technology may be speeding up, but society still always overestimates how fast technology is actually developing. Thirdly, you need more than one study to validate something as ground shaking as that. I'm not saying it isn't reliable, but large claims need larger evidence.
>A THOUSAND YEARS >half of US jobs are vulnerable to automation I'll let you do the math.
38468
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:50:42 PM »
Translation: I don't have a rebuttal so I'm just going to talk shit.
Yet you do that constantly yourself.
No, I always have a point to make.
If by point you mean 'way to defend yourself,' then I really can't say I disagree.
Nope.
I make a post. You and/or Kinder come running along and start posting the same ignorant shit over and over, or in your case pathetic attempts at insults. I respond, prove you wrong, and then you guys either stop replying or just start lame attempts at insults.
Posting memes proves people wrong? Wow, learn something new everyday.
No, the image was because I was laughing at how wrong you are.
The link under the image proved you wrong.
You linked me to a forum post by a user named SoulSkill.
Which had a link (when text is blue, you can click it and it takes you to another website, these are commonly called "links") to this: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/
38469
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:45:23 PM »
"Leftist countries like China"
AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That was the the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Ok, time for some facts because I just lost a shit ton of brain cells listening to that dude without any testicles.
http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/owow/waterqualityfacts.cfmAbout 44% of assessed stream miles, 64% of assessed lake acres, and 30% of assessed bay and estuarine square miles are not clean enough to support uses such as fishing and swimming.
A recent study of the nation's streams found that only 28% have healthy biological communities compared to best possible conditions in their region
http://stateoftheair.orgMore than 147.6 million people—47 percent of the nation—live where pollution levels are too often dangerous to breathe, an increase from last year's report. Despite that risk, some seek to weaken the Clean Air Act, the public health law that has driven the cuts in pollution since 1970.
http://www.saveamericasforests.org/crisis.htm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States
>missing the point
Compare what's going on today in America to that of past America. Water is more cleaner, more trees are being planted, and animal populations have increased in America. Now compare America to China and you will see that America has cleaner air, water, etc, etc than China
There's literally no refuting that America has cleaned up it's act and if you actually think America was better in the past then just lol
Why are we comparing America to China in the first place? It's a fascist shithole run by a dictator. America is democratic.
It's well known China has the worst pollution in the world. But calling it a "leftist country" and comparing it to America as a "right wing" country is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. And what that woman meant with her sign, is that money is not worth destroying our planet. And then he goes on to assume she's uneducated and ignorant and rants for the rest of the video cherry picking facts to support his extremely ridiculous argument.
America is far better than it was in the past, but that doesn't mean there's isn't a lot to improve. The entire video is ridiculous, because nobody makes any of the points he was "countering".
If you think that man in the video is intelligent then FUCKING LOL.
If you watched the video, then you'd understand why we're using China as a comparison. China is a left-wing nation that utilizes socialism and communism
Lol wut? Socialism/Communism is on the left side of the spectrum whilst Capitalism/Republicanism is on the right. China follows the left ideology while America follows the right ideology. Tell me how that's stupid. Except anybody with an average/above average IQ understand that the environment is needed to ensure life, which is why you see capitalistic nations, like America, enforce policies to protect the enviroment and domestic logging companies plant 2-3 trees for every tree they cut down. On the flip-side, the left (communist/socialist) nations, like China, do nothing to curb pollution and such
There is of course more to be done to improve but the point is that America has been impriroving over decades and centuries while the same ideologies that the women promotes (the left) is what countries like China posses but are backwards in protecting the enviroment
I think it's pretty damn obvious I watched the video.
China is not communist. If anything, it's fascist. Not only that, it's also capitalist. The point is they're so fucking corrupt that they don't give a shit about polluting the environment.
You didn't read a single one of my links, did you? These trees that are being planted in the place of trees that have been around for years are susceptible to forest fires and several other problems. It's a shitty cop out to just cut everything down. Do yourself a favor and read my links.
China IS Communist. Sorry, but trying to twist the facts will not work in your favor. And how can it be capitalist when the entire economy is ruled by the government? Talk about contradictions. Corruption is what Communists do best. See, in nations that promote liberty and freedom, enviromental and living conditions stomp on that of communist nations
>facts show that trees are being planted far more than ever
>tries to move the goal posts and construct a loaded question
Oh Chally, why do I waste my time with you?
China isn't Communist. Educate yourself.
China is corrupt because people pay each other off. Companies aren't restricted or told not to pollute. They pollute wherever they want. All the officials in the government are bought and payed for.
Oh wow. Did you seriously understand that from what I said? These trees being planted are actually environmental hazards because they're susceptible to forest fires, which if you haven't noticed are getting more and more widespread and are bigger and longer lasting than before, due to climate change as well.
I don't know why you waste your time regurgitating the same old ignorant bullshit over and over.
China is Communist You educate yourself
Dear God, it's learning. We all know this Chally. But guess what, in proper Capitalistic societies, we enforce laws and regulate pollutants in the environment
Forest fires happen everywhere, so I guess just forget about planting trees huh? If you're going to complain, then pick something better to complain about
No it isn't. It's comical you think that's up for debate.
And China is corrupt so it doesn't enforce anything, although it is capitalist. Again, I don't even know why you're arguing this point when you aren't even in disagreement, you just have this raging boner for disagreeing with me.
I'm complaining? More like I'm educating you on how these "measures" aren't enough. Fires burn down an entire forest when these trees are planted after cutting down the strong and old ones. Instead of planting hemp fields, we're destroying our planet because of some greedy fuckers.
It is. It's comical to see you deny it
I'm not arguing that China is corrupt, because that's not the point. The point is that China following leftist ideals, which people like Feinstein and anarchists love, are the ones causing a large part of pollution. Yet, despite people having a angsty hate for Capitalism, it's the Capitalistic nations that are cleaning and fixing shit. But you just have a knack for derailing and going off-topic
Trees are being planted. Again, in an effort to look smart you have to move the goal posts and go off-topic (like, when the hell were we ever talking about hemp? ??). Bu I'll entertain you and say again, forest fires happen all the time and can happen anywhere
No, it really really isn't Communist. Um, no. It doesn't follow any leftist ideals, it's a fascist dictatorship. Not to mention capitalist. The pollution there has nothing to do with ideals, it has to do with corruption. You don't seem to understand basic concepts, so I'm going to break this down for you. -I know trees are being planted, I explicitly brought it up in my original post. -These trees being planted are very susceptible to forest fires and aren't doing a good job of recreating what was cut down. -47% of Americans breathe air considered almost toxic. -Hemp is a much better alternative to deforestation, and are not as susceptible to forest fires because they're grown in a controlled environment. Understand yet?
38470
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:36:44 PM »
Translation: I don't have a rebuttal so I'm just going to talk shit.
Yet you do that constantly yourself.
No, I always have a point to make.
If by point you mean 'way to defend yourself,' then I really can't say I disagree.
Nope.
I make a post. You and/or Kinder come running along and start posting the same ignorant shit over and over, or in your case pathetic attempts at insults. I respond, prove you wrong, and then you guys either stop replying or just start lame attempts at insults.
Posting memes proves people wrong? Wow, learn something new everyday.
No, the image was because I was laughing at how wrong you are. The link under the image proved you wrong.
38471
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:30:35 PM »
The process of eliminating the societal need of a work force will probably take a thousand years
 http://slashdot.org/story/191595
Taking your angst to another thread eh? I'm sure Cheat will soon take my advise and actually ban non-serious posts, or essentially all of yours. Who actually uses memes to respond to people anyway?
advice* Yes, I'm sure Cheat loves to read your advice. Especially when you make completely off topic posts all the time on the Serious board, more so than any other user. Whenever your like to actually respond to my post and write something on topic, I'll try and take you seriously.
38472
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:28:30 PM »
Translation: I don't have a rebuttal so I'm just going to talk shit.
Yet you do that constantly yourself.
No, I always have a point to make.
If by point you mean 'way to defend yourself,' then I really can't say I disagree.
Nope.
I make a post. You and/or Kinder come running along and start posting the same ignorant shit over and over, or in your case pathetic attempts at insults. I respond, prove you wrong, and then you guys either stop replying or just start lame attempts at insults.
But Challenger, you do the very thing. It's as if you make all these statements that relate to you but make it seem it's others
Not at all.
38473
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:27:13 PM »
"Leftist countries like China"
AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That was the the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Ok, time for some facts because I just lost a shit ton of brain cells listening to that dude without any testicles.
http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/owow/waterqualityfacts.cfmAbout 44% of assessed stream miles, 64% of assessed lake acres, and 30% of assessed bay and estuarine square miles are not clean enough to support uses such as fishing and swimming.
A recent study of the nation's streams found that only 28% have healthy biological communities compared to best possible conditions in their region
http://stateoftheair.orgMore than 147.6 million people—47 percent of the nation—live where pollution levels are too often dangerous to breathe, an increase from last year's report. Despite that risk, some seek to weaken the Clean Air Act, the public health law that has driven the cuts in pollution since 1970.
http://www.saveamericasforests.org/crisis.htm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States
>missing the point
Compare what's going on today in America to that of past America. Water is more cleaner, more trees are being planted, and animal populations have increased in America. Now compare America to China and you will see that America has cleaner air, water, etc, etc than China
There's literally no refuting that America has cleaned up it's act and if you actually think America was better in the past then just lol
Why are we comparing America to China in the first place? It's a fascist shithole run by a dictator. America is democratic.
It's well known China has the worst pollution in the world. But calling it a "leftist country" and comparing it to America as a "right wing" country is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. And what that woman meant with her sign, is that money is not worth destroying our planet. And then he goes on to assume she's uneducated and ignorant and rants for the rest of the video cherry picking facts to support his extremely ridiculous argument.
America is far better than it was in the past, but that doesn't mean there's isn't a lot to improve. The entire video is ridiculous, because nobody makes any of the points he was "countering".
If you think that man in the video is intelligent then FUCKING LOL.
If you watched the video, then you'd understand why we're using China as a comparison. China is a left-wing nation that utilizes socialism and communism
Lol wut? Socialism/Communism is on the left side of the spectrum whilst Capitalism/Republicanism is on the right. China follows the left ideology while America follows the right ideology. Tell me how that's stupid. Except anybody with an average/above average IQ understand that the environment is needed to ensure life, which is why you see capitalistic nations, like America, enforce policies to protect the enviroment and domestic logging companies plant 2-3 trees for every tree they cut down. On the flip-side, the left (communist/socialist) nations, like China, do nothing to curb pollution and such
There is of course more to be done to improve but the point is that America has been impriroving over decades and centuries while the same ideologies that the women promotes (the left) is what countries like China posses but are backwards in protecting the enviroment
I think it's pretty damn obvious I watched the video.
China is not communist. If anything, it's fascist. Not only that, it's also capitalist. The point is they're so fucking corrupt that they don't give a shit about polluting the environment.
You didn't read a single one of my links, did you? These trees that are being planted in the place of trees that have been around for years are susceptible to forest fires and several other problems. It's a shitty cop out to just cut everything down. Do yourself a favor and read my links.
China IS Communist. Sorry, but trying to twist the facts will not work in your favor. And how can it be capitalist when the entire economy is ruled by the government? Talk about contradictions. Corruption is what Communists do best. See, in nations that promote liberty and freedom, enviromental and living conditions stomp on that of communist nations
>facts show that trees are being planted far more than ever
>tries to move the goal posts and construct a loaded question
Oh Chally, why do I waste my time with you?
China isn't Communist. Educate yourself.
China is corrupt because people pay each other off. Companies aren't restricted or told not to pollute. They pollute wherever they want. All the officials in the government are bought and payed for.
Oh wow. Did you seriously understand that from what I said? These trees being planted are actually environmental hazards because they're susceptible to forest fires, which if you haven't noticed are getting more and more widespread and are bigger and longer lasting than before, due to climate change as well.
I don't know why you waste your time regurgitating the same old ignorant bullshit over and over.
China is Communist You educate yourself
Dear God, it's learning. We all know this Chally. But guess what, in proper Capitalistic societies, we enforce laws and regulate pollutants in the environment
Forest fires happen everywhere, so I guess just forget about planting trees huh? If you're going to complain, then pick something better to complain about
No it isn't. It's comical you think that's up for debate. And China is corrupt so it doesn't enforce anything, although it is capitalist. Again, I don't even know why you're arguing this point when you aren't even in disagreement, you just have this raging boner for disagreeing with me. I'm complaining? More like I'm educating you on how these "measures" aren't enough. Fires burn down an entire forest when these trees are planted after cutting down the strong and old ones. Instead of planting hemp fields, we're destroying our planet because of some greedy fuckers.
38474
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:21:48 PM »
Translation: I don't have a rebuttal so I'm just going to talk shit.
Yet you do that constantly yourself.
No, I always have a point to make.
If by point you mean 'way to defend yourself,' then I really can't say I disagree.
Nope. I make a post. You and/or Kinder come running along and start posting the same ignorant shit over and over, or in your case pathetic attempts at insults. I respond, prove you wrong, and then you guys either stop replying or just start lame attempts at insults.
38475
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:19:15 PM »
The process of eliminating the societal need of a work force will probably take a thousand years
http://slashdot.org/story/191595
38476
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:13:36 PM »
"Leftist countries like China"
AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That was the the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Ok, time for some facts because I just lost a shit ton of brain cells listening to that dude without any testicles.
http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/owow/waterqualityfacts.cfmAbout 44% of assessed stream miles, 64% of assessed lake acres, and 30% of assessed bay and estuarine square miles are not clean enough to support uses such as fishing and swimming.
A recent study of the nation's streams found that only 28% have healthy biological communities compared to best possible conditions in their region
http://stateoftheair.orgMore than 147.6 million people—47 percent of the nation—live where pollution levels are too often dangerous to breathe, an increase from last year's report. Despite that risk, some seek to weaken the Clean Air Act, the public health law that has driven the cuts in pollution since 1970.
http://www.saveamericasforests.org/crisis.htm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States
>missing the point
Compare what's going on today in America to that of past America. Water is more cleaner, more trees are being planted, and animal populations have increased in America. Now compare America to China and you will see that America has cleaner air, water, etc, etc than China
There's literally no refuting that America has cleaned up it's act and if you actually think America was better in the past then just lol
Why are we comparing America to China in the first place? It's a fascist shithole run by a dictator. America is democratic.
It's well known China has the worst pollution in the world. But calling it a "leftist country" and comparing it to America as a "right wing" country is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. And what that woman meant with her sign, is that money is not worth destroying our planet. And then he goes on to assume she's uneducated and ignorant and rants for the rest of the video cherry picking facts to support his extremely ridiculous argument.
America is far better than it was in the past, but that doesn't mean there's isn't a lot to improve. The entire video is ridiculous, because nobody makes any of the points he was "countering".
If you think that man in the video is intelligent then FUCKING LOL.
If you watched the video, then you'd understand why we're using China as a comparison. China is a left-wing nation that utilizes socialism and communism
Lol wut? Socialism/Communism is on the left side of the spectrum whilst Capitalism/Republicanism is on the right. China follows the left ideology while America follows the right ideology. Tell me how that's stupid. Except anybody with an average/above average IQ understand that the environment is needed to ensure life, which is why you see capitalistic nations, like America, enforce policies to protect the enviroment and domestic logging companies plant 2-3 trees for every tree they cut down. On the flip-side, the left (communist/socialist) nations, like China, do nothing to curb pollution and such
There is of course more to be done to improve but the point is that America has been impriroving over decades and centuries while the same ideologies that the women promotes (the left) is what countries like China posses but are backwards in protecting the enviroment
I think it's pretty damn obvious I watched the video.
China is not communist. If anything, it's fascist. Not only that, it's also capitalist. The point is they're so fucking corrupt that they don't give a shit about polluting the environment.
You didn't read a single one of my links, did you? These trees that are being planted in the place of trees that have been around for years are susceptible to forest fires and several other problems. It's a shitty cop out to just cut everything down. Do yourself a favor and read my links.
China IS Communist. Sorry, but trying to twist the facts will not work in your favor. And how can it be capitalist when the entire economy is ruled by the government? Talk about contradictions. Corruption is what Communists do best. See, in nations that promote liberty and freedom, enviromental and living conditions stomp on that of communist nations
>facts show that trees are being planted far more than ever
>tries to move the goal posts and construct a loaded question
Oh Chally, why do I waste my time with you?
I don't know why you waste your time regurgitating the same old ignorant bullshit over and over.
Considering you do it all the time, I'll direct it to you
Translation: I don't have a rebuttal so I'm just going to talk shit.
Funny, because you always talk shit
Never.
I always have a point to make. You're just butthurt 24/7.
I wonder if challenger actually believes this or if he just recites it in his head enough times that he doesn't have to question it.
KINDER AND DUSTBIN SITTING IN A TREE K I S S I N G Is there a reason you follow me around and try to insult me? What is it I've said to you that has you so obsessed?
38477
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:11:34 PM »
Translation: I don't have a rebuttal so I'm just going to talk shit.
Yet you do that constantly yourself.
No, I always have a point to make.
38478
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:10:33 PM »
China is communist.
Blatantly ignoring facts is more retarded than anything Icy's done.
So you attempt to ignoring the facts? Because the facts is that China is communist
espeaky the English?
38479
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:09:13 PM »
"Leftist countries like China"
AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That was the the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Ok, time for some facts because I just lost a shit ton of brain cells listening to that dude without any testicles.
http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/owow/waterqualityfacts.cfmAbout 44% of assessed stream miles, 64% of assessed lake acres, and 30% of assessed bay and estuarine square miles are not clean enough to support uses such as fishing and swimming.
A recent study of the nation's streams found that only 28% have healthy biological communities compared to best possible conditions in their region
http://stateoftheair.orgMore than 147.6 million people—47 percent of the nation—live where pollution levels are too often dangerous to breathe, an increase from last year's report. Despite that risk, some seek to weaken the Clean Air Act, the public health law that has driven the cuts in pollution since 1970.
http://www.saveamericasforests.org/crisis.htm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States
>missing the point
Compare what's going on today in America to that of past America. Water is more cleaner, more trees are being planted, and animal populations have increased in America. Now compare America to China and you will see that America has cleaner air, water, etc, etc than China
There's literally no refuting that America has cleaned up it's act and if you actually think America was better in the past then just lol
Why are we comparing America to China in the first place? It's a fascist shithole run by a dictator. America is democratic.
It's well known China has the worst pollution in the world. But calling it a "leftist country" and comparing it to America as a "right wing" country is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. And what that woman meant with her sign, is that money is not worth destroying our planet. And then he goes on to assume she's uneducated and ignorant and rants for the rest of the video cherry picking facts to support his extremely ridiculous argument.
America is far better than it was in the past, but that doesn't mean there's isn't a lot to improve. The entire video is ridiculous, because nobody makes any of the points he was "countering".
If you think that man in the video is intelligent then FUCKING LOL.
If you watched the video, then you'd understand why we're using China as a comparison. China is a left-wing nation that utilizes socialism and communism
Lol wut? Socialism/Communism is on the left side of the spectrum whilst Capitalism/Republicanism is on the right. China follows the left ideology while America follows the right ideology. Tell me how that's stupid. Except anybody with an average/above average IQ understand that the environment is needed to ensure life, which is why you see capitalistic nations, like America, enforce policies to protect the enviroment and domestic logging companies plant 2-3 trees for every tree they cut down. On the flip-side, the left (communist/socialist) nations, like China, do nothing to curb pollution and such
There is of course more to be done to improve but the point is that America has been impriroving over decades and centuries while the same ideologies that the women promotes (the left) is what countries like China posses but are backwards in protecting the enviroment
I think it's pretty damn obvious I watched the video.
China is not communist. If anything, it's fascist. Not only that, it's also capitalist. The point is they're so fucking corrupt that they don't give a shit about polluting the environment.
You didn't read a single one of my links, did you? These trees that are being planted in the place of trees that have been around for years are susceptible to forest fires and several other problems. It's a shitty cop out to just cut everything down. Do yourself a favor and read my links.
China IS Communist. Sorry, but trying to twist the facts will not work in your favor. And how can it be capitalist when the entire economy is ruled by the government? Talk about contradictions. Corruption is what Communists do best. See, in nations that promote liberty and freedom, enviromental and living conditions stomp on that of communist nations
>facts show that trees are being planted far more than ever
>tries to move the goal posts and construct a loaded question
Oh Chally, why do I waste my time with you?
I don't know why you waste your time regurgitating the same old ignorant bullshit over and over.
Considering you do it all the time, I'll direct it to you
Translation: I don't have a rebuttal so I'm just going to talk shit.
Funny, because you always talk shit
Never. I always have a point to make. You're just butthurt 24/7.
38480
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:05:46 PM »
"Leftist countries like China"
AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That was the the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Ok, time for some facts because I just lost a shit ton of brain cells listening to that dude without any testicles.
http://water.epa.gov/aboutow/owow/waterqualityfacts.cfmAbout 44% of assessed stream miles, 64% of assessed lake acres, and 30% of assessed bay and estuarine square miles are not clean enough to support uses such as fishing and swimming.
A recent study of the nation's streams found that only 28% have healthy biological communities compared to best possible conditions in their region
http://stateoftheair.orgMore than 147.6 million people—47 percent of the nation—live where pollution levels are too often dangerous to breathe, an increase from last year's report. Despite that risk, some seek to weaken the Clean Air Act, the public health law that has driven the cuts in pollution since 1970.
http://www.saveamericasforests.org/crisis.htm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States
>missing the point
Compare what's going on today in America to that of past America. Water is more cleaner, more trees are being planted, and animal populations have increased in America. Now compare America to China and you will see that America has cleaner air, water, etc, etc than China
There's literally no refuting that America has cleaned up it's act and if you actually think America was better in the past then just lol
Why are we comparing America to China in the first place? It's a fascist shithole run by a dictator. America is democratic.
It's well known China has the worst pollution in the world. But calling it a "leftist country" and comparing it to America as a "right wing" country is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. And what that woman meant with her sign, is that money is not worth destroying our planet. And then he goes on to assume she's uneducated and ignorant and rants for the rest of the video cherry picking facts to support his extremely ridiculous argument.
America is far better than it was in the past, but that doesn't mean there's isn't a lot to improve. The entire video is ridiculous, because nobody makes any of the points he was "countering".
If you think that man in the video is intelligent then FUCKING LOL.
If you watched the video, then you'd understand why we're using China as a comparison. China is a left-wing nation that utilizes socialism and communism
Lol wut? Socialism/Communism is on the left side of the spectrum whilst Capitalism/Republicanism is on the right. China follows the left ideology while America follows the right ideology. Tell me how that's stupid. Except anybody with an average/above average IQ understand that the environment is needed to ensure life, which is why you see capitalistic nations, like America, enforce policies to protect the enviroment and domestic logging companies plant 2-3 trees for every tree they cut down. On the flip-side, the left (communist/socialist) nations, like China, do nothing to curb pollution and such
There is of course more to be done to improve but the point is that America has been impriroving over decades and centuries while the same ideologies that the women promotes (the left) is what countries like China posses but are backwards in protecting the enviroment
I think it's pretty damn obvious I watched the video.
China is not communist. If anything, it's fascist. Not only that, it's also capitalist. The point is they're so fucking corrupt that they don't give a shit about polluting the environment.
You didn't read a single one of my links, did you? These trees that are being planted in the place of trees that have been around for years are susceptible to forest fires and several other problems. It's a shitty cop out to just cut everything down. Do yourself a favor and read my links.
China IS Communist. Sorry, but trying to twist the facts will not work in your favor. And how can it be capitalist when the entire economy is ruled by the government? Talk about contradictions. Corruption is what Communists do best. See, in nations that promote liberty and freedom, enviromental and living conditions stomp on that of communist nations
>facts show that trees are being planted far more than ever
>tries to move the goal posts and construct a loaded question
Oh Chally, why do I waste my time with you?
I don't know why you waste your time regurgitating the same old ignorant bullshit over and over.
Considering you do it all the time, I'll direct it to you
Translation: I don't have a rebuttal so I'm just going to talk shit.
38481
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:01:19 PM »
why is shopping for clothes so hard
ffs
Psshht just buy plain T-shirts, sweaters for the cold, pants, and a jacket for the extreme cold.
Shoes on the other hand are the bane of my existence. I've only ever truly liked one pair of shoes in my entire life, the Nike Huaraches. They look cool as fuck and felt like walking on a mattress tailor made to make your feet feel good. Haven't been able to find any since I outgrew them. I'm gonna get a pair soon, though. Definitely buy a pair if you don't have them already. They're insanely comfortable.
Huaraches look like they have scaffolding man lol :/ I gotta check them irl tho
I just stick to my vans.
The high tops are awesome looking.  And even if you don't really like the look of them, they are seriously THE MOST comfortable shoe EVER.
38482
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:57:26 PM »
ok ok what about this shirt?
lolno
38483
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:55:01 PM »
why is shopping for clothes so hard
ffs
Psshht just buy plain T-shirts, sweaters for the cold, pants, and a jacket for the extreme cold. Shoes on the other hand are the bane of my existence. I've only ever truly liked one pair of shoes in my entire life, the Nike Huaraches. They look cool as fuck and felt like walking on a mattress tailor made to make your feet feel good. Haven't been able to find any since I outgrew them. I'm gonna get a pair soon, though. Definitely buy a pair if you don't have them already. They're insanely comfortable.
38484
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:47:32 PM »
ok ok ok you guys have no swag, what about this?
What's with the tight clothing.
Do I need to put on RC's nameplate again?
IM A FUCKING FAG, lol joke. i'll get a bigger size so it's sorta loose
Ew.
You are part of the problem with men's clothes.
You, sir! You are a blight!
Clothing should always be loose on men. Even suits have a degree of looseness.
Or there's something tight underneath something loose. The only time tight clothing is needed is sports. Otherwise it was made accentuate women's curves. Of which men have none so there's no reason to have clothes firmly pressed against the body, unless you're an athlete.
Except men aren't boxes. Neither men or women have any flat sides. Men do have a shape, especially when they take care of themselves and aren't fat. This has been seen before in history with men's fashion, but for some ungodly reason clothing makers gave up on men.
I don't see how a T shirt/sweater and pants make somebody look like a box.
It's just the natural order of things. Women look better with tight clothing, men don't.
It really depends on the individual person. But what I mean is that men's shirts are made with straight, parallel sides, a shape that men don't have.
wat Shirts fit exactly to the human/primate shape.
38485
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:44:57 PM »
ok ok ok you guys have no swag, what about this?
What's with the tight clothing.
Do I need to put on RC's nameplate again?
IM A FUCKING FAG, lol joke. i'll get a bigger size so it's sorta loose
Ew.
You are part of the problem with men's clothes.
You, sir! You are a blight!
I don't buy super loose clothers, just not super tight either. It's nicely fitted to my stature.
Pudgy?
nahhh man, like this. not too tight but not loose and ugly either
So like a dad.
no, just not super tight like an edgy fag.
how the fuck do you even put that shit on
One leg at a time. Like pants.
Besides, they're jeggings, so they're stretchy.
What the fuck is a jeggings.
38486
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:42:20 PM »
ok ok ok you guys have no swag, what about this?
What's with the tight clothing.
Do I need to put on RC's nameplate again?
IM A FUCKING FAG, lol joke. i'll get a bigger size so it's sorta loose
Ew.
You are part of the problem with men's clothes.
You, sir! You are a blight!
Clothing should always be loose on men. Even suits have a degree of looseness.
Or there's something tight underneath something loose. The only time tight clothing is needed is sports. Otherwise it was made accentuate women's curves. Of which men have none so there's no reason to have clothes firmly pressed against the body, unless you're an athlete.
Except men aren't boxes. Neither men or women have any flat sides. Men do have a shape, especially when they take care of themselves and aren't fat. This has been seen before in history with men's fashion, but for some ungodly reason clothing makers gave up on men.
I don't see how a T shirt/sweater and pants make somebody look like a box. It's just the natural order of things. Women look better with tight clothing, men don't.
38487
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:40:24 PM »
ok ok ok you guys have no swag, what about this?
What's with the tight clothing.
Do I need to put on RC's nameplate again?
IM A FUCKING FAG, lol joke. i'll get a bigger size so it's sorta loose
Ew.
You are part of the problem with men's clothes.
You, sir! You are a blight!
I don't buy super loose clothers, just not super tight either. It's nicely fitted to my stature.
Pudgy?
nahhh man, like this. not too tight but not loose and ugly either
So like a dad.
no, just not super tight like an edgy fag.
38488
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:37:04 PM »
ok ok ok you guys have no swag, what about this?
What's with the tight clothing.
Do I need to put on RC's nameplate again?
IM A FUCKING FAG, lol joke. i'll get a bigger size so it's sorta loose
Ew.
You are part of the problem with men's clothes.
You, sir! You are a blight!
Clothing should always be loose on men. Even suits have a degree of looseness. Or there's something tight underneath something loose. The only time tight clothing is needed is sports. Otherwise it was made accentuate women's curves. Of which men have none so there's no reason to have clothes firmly pressed against the body, unless you're an athlete.
38489
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:29:29 PM »
ok ok ok you guys have no swag, what about this?
What's with the tight clothing.
Do I need to put on RC's nameplate again?
IM A FUCKING FAG, lol joke. i'll get a bigger size so it's sorta loose
You better m9. I was already collecting stones.
38490
« on: October 28, 2014, 05:28:05 PM »
Do you dye your hair black with red highlights too?
Pages: 1 ... 128112821283 12841285 ... 1397
|
Show Posts
