Special Ed Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 I really like the movie mad max. Could be a dream come true! So shiny. So Chrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 I find this post offensive. I find your existence offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 I find your existence offensive. I find your offense offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KFBR392 Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 *edit* Wrong thread. Time for another drunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 Why is everyone on the defensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster6 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 It makes sense amphibians have been hard hit, they breathe through their moist skin & are thus very susceptible to environmental change. Humans facing extinction? Seems unlikely in the near (100-200 year) future, unless an asteroid takes us out. Super volcanoes could take out a large chunk of our population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 I find this post offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 I'm not of the opinion that people should stop having kids. However, 2 should be a reasonable number max no? I can't figure out why government encourages more than 2 to be honest. We are not needing to expand across the globe any more, we've done that as a human race already. So why not tax the 10 child family that keeps birthing instead of the rich one rich person with no kids? The kids would suffer, the one person can afford it. It's all about balance? But is it? The planet won't work this way forever...the room and resources are running out. It's a social problem we haven't learned to deal with yet. Hopefully we figure it out before it's too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster6 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Who are you to say people need to stop having kids? People just want a better life for their families. Why don't you move somewhere that's developing? You're taking up resources, no? Eh if you move, one less problem, right If you procreate beyond your means or skill, then you are terrible *expletive* person who is in essence preforming constant child abuse. Yes, the thing is this generally happens in uneducated societies that arose by leaders that historically failed them, however that's no excuse to bring 5+ children into the world only to suffer, just because they provide YOU with some tiny bit of happiness to hold on to. Meanwhile making this living situation on Earth more difficult for the people that aren't adding more detriment to it than value. If you have more than 4 kids, you're a c(_)nty person, and are indefensibly selfish regardless of where you live on this planet. If your ancestors created a state of which the designed inevitably failed you and it's people, it's up to you to find a way out, or your government to make life easier on you through progress. As nice of a pipe dream it is to destroy all boarders over night, it would be counter-productive and detrimental to humanity. It's not an obligation for the rest of the world to cater to you just because your ancestors f'd you over. You're family had bought in over the generations and their stupidity f'd you over. If the current generation abroad hasn't smartened up and is still only creating problems for themselves rather than at least attempting to make a better life for themselves through education, or developing skills. Then it falls on the responsibility of their failed leaders to get their act together or be replaced with those who can. So either stay for the long haul and help fix the place, or develop enough education and skills to get the hell out. If you're useless because your parents were useless who's parents were useless and so on, it's not on me or my country to fund your way out. Hell on Earth use to be everywhere across the globe basically a few hundred years ago, and my ancestors figured some things out to make life easier by, irregardless of country, some people got things kind of okay so that people aren't being killed by marauders left and right. That being said. Poor people in a 1st world country have zero to cry about because existing in 2015 in a 1st world country (even if homeless) is a f(_)cking cake walk compared to existing anywhere 200+ years ago. I probably sound cynical tonight. I realize these are tough issues with no perfect answers, I've just always been in the camp of not letting people come *expletive* things up where others have gotten things kind of okay. (Yes I acknowledge that many developed nations are responsible for egregious acts against humanity throughout their history) There I did it. I was the one that had to play devils advocate and sound like a POS. Edit: I know a doctor who had come over here from Iraq to raise his family. He figured sh*t out for himself and saved his family himself. Call me callous but I don't want my country taking in people that provide nothing to the current residents. Keep your accusations of xenophobia away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 I'm not of the opinion that people should stop having kids. However, 2 should be a reasonable number max no? I can't figure out why government encourages more than 2 to be honest. We are not needing to expand across the globe any more, we've done that as a human race already. So why not tax the 10 child family that keeps birthing instead of the rich one rich person with no kids? The kids would suffer, the one person can afford it. It's all about balance? But is it? The planet won't work this way forever...the room and resources are running out. It's a social problem we haven't learned to deal with yet. Hopefully we figure it out before it's too late. The world's population isn't increasing drastically because of the developed world. The US is an exception because of immigrants who like to illegally immigrate then have 50 anchor babies for taxpayers to support. Otherwise, it's primarily countries in Africa and the Middle East who average 4-8 kids per woman, and where the population growth over the next 50+ years will be strongest. It will affect the developed world because they'll be coming to westernized countries and bringing their 1600s culture with them. Hence the necessity for C-24, C-51, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster6 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 The world's population isn't increasing drastically because of the developed world. The US is an exception because of immigrants who like to illegally immigrate then have 50 anchor babies for taxpayers to support. Otherwise, it's primarily countries in Africa and the Middle East who average 4-8 kids per woman, and where the population growth over the next 50+ years will be strongest. It will affect the developed world because they'll be coming to westernized countries and bringing their 1600s culture with them. Hence the necessity for C-24, C-51, etc. C-51 as it is written today is not a necessity. it's an overreach that is opaque, and will be exploited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 C-51 as it is written today is not a necessity. it's an overreach that is opaque, and will be exploited. No doubt the bills could be better, but I wasn't expecting bills I'd be 100% satisfied with anyhow. At very least, as long as it allows Canada stronger restrictions on immigration, citizenship, as well as the ability to combat the increasing worldwide extremism by religious/non-religious (mostly Muslim) fanatics, I'm happy with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster6 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 You know a bill is full of toxicity when it's named "Letter-Numbers", rather than a bill name that declares a statement in regards to it's purpose. When the bill's name makes clear what it's for, then people can point to the things in the bill that go against the name of the bill. This way they just hide the bankrupt integrity of the bill altogether from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 No doubt the bills could be better, but I wasn't expecting bills I'd be 100% satisfied with anyhow. At very least, as long as it allows Canada stronger restrictions on immigration, citizenship, as well as the ability to combat the increasing worldwide extremism by religious/non-religious (mostly Muslim) fanatics, I'm happy with that. In other words as long as it solves a bunch of imaginary problems, it's a good enough bill? Where would CPC be without voters like you?! You know a bill is full of toxicity when it's named "Letter-Numbers", rather than a bill name that declares a statement in regards to it's purpose. When the bill's name makes clear what it's for, then people can point to the things in the bill that go against the name of the bill. This way they just hide the bankrupt integrity of the bill altogether from the start. Like the Fair Elections Act? Good one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 You know a bill is full of toxicity when it's named "Letter-Numbers", rather than a bill name that declares a statement in regards to it's purpose. When the bill's name makes clear what it's for, then people can point to the things in the bill that go against the name of the bill. This way they just hide the bankrupt integrity of the bill altogether from the start. You would prefer they name things the marketing fashion the way the Americans do? The USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act of 2001? The USA FREEDOM (Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring) Act of 2015? When we know those things haven't a thing to do with freedom other than chipping away at individual liberties? I'd prefer the boring method we have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster6 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 You would prefer they name things the marketing fashion the way the Americans do? The USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act of 2001? The USA FREEDOM (Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring) Act of 2015? When we know those things haven't a thing to do with freedom other than chipping away at individual liberties? I'd prefer the boring method we have now. I'm didn't give a preference for either. I'm just saying you know before you read it that it's full of non sense because it's hiding from it's hypocrisy by being opaque. Like the Fair Elections Act? Good one! I'm didn't say a transparent bill = a good bill. I'm saying it's attempting to minimizes the amount of hypocrisy there-in that is publicly pointed out. Thanks for the scheduled condescending remark I'm so used to hearing around every corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 I'm didn't give a preference for either. I'm just saying you know before you read it that it's full of non sense because it's hiding from it's hypocrisy by being opaque. I'm didn't say a transparent bill = a good bill. I'm saying it's attempting to minimizes the amount of hypocrisy there-in that is publicly pointed out. Thanks for the scheduled condescending remark I'm so used to hearing around every corner. Wasn't meant to be condescending, it was supposed to be a joke, as in it's a funny joke to suggest that named bills are in any way better than letter-numbers by virtue of being named after what they supposedly deal with. In practice, they can be named rainbows and lollipops and contain nothing of the sort. Naming bills merely allows an extra avenue to mislead about its contents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster6 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 I know you think I can be a loon a times but i'm not the looniest loon in this bin. I'm just willing to play devils advocate for controversial scenarios (even if it's not truly/fully what I believe myself) I definitely have some controversial opinions and am outspoken about them, but I don't claim to be right at all times. I'm just willing to put myself out there by expressing an unpopular opinion. Opinion validity is subjective, since everyone has a different world view and perspective on things, based on their life experiences and accumulated knowledge. However I'd like to think I spend much more time paying attention to the current events (and history) that matter, than the average person. As you also do, and each interaction I have discussing different thoughts/ideas/hypothesis' the more I reshape my views. I'm an open minded skeptic. I look to be persuaded, I'm just very judgmental of humans because I look through George Carlin worldview goggles and have become somewhat misanthropic because of the perpetual stupidity of my species. A species that overwhelmingly likes to believe that they were created in the image of god, as if there could be no more perfect species. Meanwhile I see us as a cancer that has taken host to the Earth. Behind every cynic is a disappointed idealist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsedin33 Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 The Mayan Calender did not predict the end of the world. It predicted the end of the 5th age of man and the beginning of the 6th and final age of man. Edit: I may have mixed up Mayan and Hopi. Exiting the 4th and entering the 5th age. The worst predictions are the vague predictions as they cannot be proved or disproved. But this is not the first time people have said the end is near and it won't be the last. I expect every 5-10 years there will be some group claiming the end of the world and a vast majority of people buying into it because it makes them feel like they are living in a special time period. I have a real prediction however, and that is nearly all 7 billion people currently living on the planet will be dead in about 125 years from old age. My prediction has a very high chance of coming true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 According to RobertScribbler's eco-blog(post, June 22nd), there are 146 wildfires currently burning in Alaska. Thanks MSM for disappearing when we need you. Most have no idea what's in the cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.