Youtube comments of RB 70 (@RB-bd5tz).
-
1100
-
493
-
391
-
346
-
345
-
224
-
200
-
162
-
149
-
132
-
125
-
117
-
Please don't become one of those channels where half the attention is on (and half the comments are about) your pets. Please. Nothing against them, but I (and, I assume, most of your viewers of the past few years) came for your valuable info and insightful commentary.
[Okay - time for an edit, 3 days after my original post: First, Louis's original reply to me was a simple statement that he didn't control his viewers' comments. He completely changed it. Second, read my reply below to tannerhart4069. Third, currently, the most popular comment is by ZonexFavel, which states that this is Blackberry's channel now, completely illustrating my points.]
74
-
69
-
68
-
55
-
54
-
47
-
46
-
44
-
42
-
35
-
32
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
@duki8616 I'm thanking him for the backstory because we should judge people's words in context. If people use those clips to say she was talking about destroying Star Wars, but she wasn't, then it's fair to point that out. However, Lucasfilm is run by a gaggle of women who overtly hate men, and every Disney Star Wars project has, in some way or another, been anti-male, mocking and insulting its male characters and audience. The fact is, when a woman hates a particular man, or group of men, she often paints all men with the same brush - so I'm betting she's completely misandrist - and that's the only reason they hired her. The very fact that there's going to be another movie about Rey, who handed Luke Skywalker an ignominious defeat and blatantly replaced him, tells you everything you need to know about how it's going to turn out.
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@Teezythadon Well, I'm not getting Netflix just to watch the whole thing, but I watched an interview and some clips on YT, including the "hug" scene. The octopus's gestures can generally be attributed to curiosity, exploration, and investigation. What we can gather for sure is that she had this big creature constantly in her life, which she eventually determined not to be dangerous. This does not mean she accepted him as a "friend"; she just tolerated his presence. Even the "hug" - well, there's no evidence that an octopus understands the amicable or social nature of a hug (remember, it's a fundamentally solitary creature), so we really don't know why she clung to him. She could have simply appreciated his body heat. I used to catch garter snakes as a kid, and, even though they resisted at first, eventually they'd voluntarily wrap around my hand and not be inclined to leave, even if I held them back near the ground. This doesn't mean they "loved" me; they just liked my body heat. Octopuses apparently exhibit some more primitive emotions, such as fear, anger, and even frustration, but friendship and love are far more complex. We have to be careful how much we anthropomorphize animals.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@cdogthehedgehog6923 If you haven't studied the Bible, you really don't know what you're talking about. The problem with the world right now is that we're doing all we can to dispense with its wisdom, and eagerly running to embrace nonsense. Did you know that the Golden Rule ("Treat others as you would like to be treated") comes from the Bible (Luke 6:31)? Though I believe the Bible was written by God through men, even if it were merely human wisdom, where do you get your wisdom? Other men? Yourself? And one day, you will find out that your every breath comes from your invisible daddy (Isaiah 42:5). But for now, let's just talk about the OP's verse, Proverbs 15:1-2. What it boils down to is, be humble and teachable, and be respectful to others even if you don't feel like it, or even if others aren't being respectful to you. This has saved me consequences at work that were suffered by coworkers that chose to escalate things (i.e., getting let go). It has saved me money when people, impressed (and probably surprised and amazed) by my humble respect, gave me things for free or reduced cost while they charged full price from people who had treated them with utter disrespect. Are you the type to take every disagreement outside, and how has that worked out for you? Being humble doesn't mean being a doormat; it means treating people with great respect, and it actually causes them to give you respect in return. Being arrogant or vengeful makes people think of you as little, and have contempt for you. "Turning the other cheek" (Lamentations 3:30) doesn't mean being a doormat, either; it just means that your attempts to insult me have no impact whatsoever. I used to think the Bible was goofy, too. Now, I urge you to actually study it, with an open mind.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
We're a Christian family. I've raised my sons to be respectful of everyone, to have a good work ethic and reputation, and to hate lying, cheating, stealing, etc. My elder son loves world geography and history, and in high school he expressed an interest in studying education or political science in university. Now, up until that point I was the most encouraging parent in the world. But I advised him against going into teaching and politics, because he would either have to conform to ridiculous BS, or be forced out because of his opinions. I also advised him against university because the "education" and the environment have become pure propaganda - and there was enough of that in high school! I also discussed the benefits of university, and gave him full freedom to decide for himself. He went to tech school - where, incidentally, the student body turned out to be still largely conservative - and he was ready to start on a good career, but then covid and all its BS. I'm horrified to realize that, these days, people like my kids and yours, raised to be decent, responsible, respectful, competent, and sensible, might actually find themselves at a severe disadvantage in the workplace and society at large.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@brndxt "He loved her, and she him" is perfectly normal, acceptable English. It's common to leave out verbs in phrases with repeated structure, because they are understood. Another example: "He went to England, and she to France." This is normally done for brevity, but, in your example, I agree that it's a deliberate choice, for effect. Also, in your example, I'd say the comma is there both for effect, and because it is necessary. For effect, it indicates a pause, as you would pause in speaking, to slow down the reader and allow them to give the same "weight" to each half. I think most people, if speaking the sentence, would put a pause in between the halves. It's also necessary because, if it weren't there, the reader might expect a verb after "she" for parallelism: He did the loving, but what was she doing? "Him"? What? She was "himming"?
As for the continents, they're generally defined as large land masses that are mostly, or completely, surrounded by water. Eurasia is one such land mass. "Europe" and "Asia' are political exceptions to the geographical rule, arbitrarily divided by the Ural and Caucasus mountains by political decision rather than by division by a water body. But it's ALL rather arbitrary. Who decides how big a land mass has to be, to be a continent? Why isn't Greenland its own continent, and why are the British Isles considered part of Europe, when they're islands? And if you go by undersea continental shelves, North and South America comprise a single continent, and Africa, Eurasia, and Australia comprise another single continent. It's the same as Pluto not being considered a "planet" anymore. It all depends how you look at it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@glassmw9823 In response to your responses to Breve Stule and Everyday Nerd Channel: You seem to be a stereotypical arrogant engineer. All they said was that engineers sometimes get things wrong. Are you shaken to the core that your engineering degree doesn't shield you from being accused of imperfection? Or that, as an engineer, you don't have godlike status? Thankfully, engineers generally DO get it right, and have pulled off amazing things. But you know about London's Millennium Bridge, and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, to name just a couple of famous, embarrassing failures. I used to work at an engineering company, and I, the lowly draftsman, caught engineers' mistakes. Shall we all just lighten up, please?
3
-
@glassmw9823 Completely agree. I don't expect perfection from anyone. When I was a kid, I thought adults all had it together, that they had the answers to everything, that they knew what to do in any situation, and that the education system turned out responsible, educated people who were ready to take on the world and excel. Big NOPE. Therefore, I am pretty understanding and forgiving when people screw up, even if it is a disaster, as long as they take responsibility. Arrogance is the one personality trait I have the least patience with - and it's usually the smallest people who think they're the biggest. Unfortunately, this trait is on the rise, and we now have People Who May Not Be Criticized, as in this video. And that's bad news for decent people and free speech.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@goranmilic442 You have said that “male” and “female” are biological categories determined by genitalia, but that “men” and “women” are gender categories determined by psychological state. Then why do men who identify as women feel that it’s necessary to physically change from male to female, and vice versa? Doesn’t that imply some connection between gender and genitalia? And when someone transitions, why is it only from male to female, or vice versa? Why aren’t there 72 sexes for gender-dysphoric people to transition among? And why should children, who can’t even legally vote, or join the army, or get any other medical treatment or even a tattoo without parental consent, be allowed to declare (under medical and societal duress) that they want a sex change - and have their request taken seriously, and granted, even against the parents’ wishes? Please attempt to make sense of this for me.
3
-
@goranmilic442 You say that sex and gender are not the same thing, yet you say there is a connection. Well, say there are 72 genders (as some people do). Then there can be no reasonable connection whatsoever, since you admit there are only two sexes. However, I quote you directly, "Sex changes happen so that gender identity can align with biological sex." This implies a very strong connection. If that's the case, then every gender must have a biological sex to correspond or transition to; there must be 72 sexes, right? Ridiculous! No! There are two sexes, and two gender roles (which are largely dictated by sexual biology and physiology). These gender roles become the norm in a properly functioning society. Every other bizarre combination should be treated as fantasy - but they are being given legitimacy, and this is destroying society.
Now, I quote you from a previous comment: "Changing definitions doesn't change objective reality." Really now? I understand that words can naturally change their meaning over time, with no real harm done. But what we're dealing with here is 1984-style propaganda: changing words to change how people think. We have seen before what comes of that. In 1930s Germany, people were propagandized to believe that certain other people were not "people" at all. So they ended up with guys like Josef Mengele, the butcher of Auschwitz.
A man can mutilate his body to look like a woman - but that does not make him a woman. He's still an XY-chromosomal man, just a mutilated one. But - a-ha! - now we've changed the definition: now we say that a mutilated man IS a "woman." So now we have men smashing women's world records in women's sports, and men literally smashing women's faces in women's boxing and volleyball. And we say that's "fair" and "right." And we also say that a boy who happens to dress up like a girl sometimes must really BE a girl. So we mutilate him into something that never will actually be a girl. Josef Mengele could only dream of such a wonderful world.
I didn't say that you said children should have sex changes [which really don't change one's sex anyway]. But that is what is happening - in objective reality - because of changes in definitions. You change the words, then persuade - or force - people to accept those changes; that changes their thinking, and that changes their attitudes and beliefs, and that changes what is acceptable in society, and THAT changes objective reality. You casually accept the premise that men can be women, because "it's just words." Taking this "logic" to its conclusion (as demonstrated by objective reality), you must agree with child sex changes. I'm asking you to defend that conclusion (child mutilation), or reject the premise that changing the meanings of words (e.g. men can be women) doesn't matter.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@hjones4922 OK, you're right: there IS something wrong with female leads - that is, MODERN female leads. Back in the '80s, Ripley, Sarah Connor, and Princess Leia were realistic, relatable people whom EVERYONE respected, admired, and cheered for. They were strong, yet had fears and weaknesses that they had to overcome, and could be defeated. Today's female leads, crap characters such as Rey and Captain Marvel (another gender-swapped character), are invincible, indestructible, god-powered cardboard sociopathic mouthpieces for the woke agenda, perfect in every way from the get-go, and talking down to all the men, who are portrayed as weak, submissive, and feminine.
Gender (and race) swapping is rampant in TV, movies, and comics. All you have to do is google "list of gender-swapped characters". There was gender swapping of lead characters in the 2004 Battlestar Galactica, but it was done well - but even that was a long time ago, when they still knew how to write interesting characters. Also, by "substituting a male lead for a female lead", I don't necessarily mean on a character-by-character basis. The all-female Ghostbusters is crap, a woman is the focus of the latest Indiana Jones movie and it's crap, and the female-dominated Star Wars sequels are crap. They didn't have to be - but instead of making interesting, character- and story-driven movies, Hollywood chose to make woke propaganda, where "woke" = "women good - especially women of colour; men stupid, weak, or evil - especially white men."
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Poedequin Well, yes and no. On the one hand, if someone understands what you're saying, I guess you've gotten your point across, which is the whole point of communication. On the other hand - well, I've got two kids in school, and I see the degradation of the "education" system that has taken place since I was there. They don't teach proper spelling, grammar, or phonics anymore; mistakes in essays are not corrected; and math is all about estimation and bizarre ways of doing long division, etc. which are cumbersome and error-prone. The "education" system is doing kids a massive disservice. What TheChickenPox Survivor said was a sentence fragment indicating that "you have a hired," which is gibberish. Things like this in a resume can lose you a job opportunity. Or, who knows - maybe the stupefaction has set in so deeply that even the HR people don't know any better. Even my kids' teachers can't write properly. This should be terribly embarrassing, but maybe you're right; maybe it doesn't matter; maybe NOTHING matters. Let's just throw ALL standards out the window. Whoopee, wonderful; let's all spiral into stupidity and mediocrity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@marthas.4456 Interesting points. I've been trying to figure out where we're heading. The cooperation between big companies and governments suggests fascism or nazism. The way people snitched on each other during covid was reminiscent of when I read The Gulag Archipelago, and the stories of my friends from Soviet Russian and Czechosolvakia. Also, it seems like economic and legal trends are aimed at wiping out the middle class, which would be like feudalism. The way people are manipulated by the media to attack, accuse, and cancel each other is like many totalitarian regimes. Not everything about socialism is bad, and I can see that it was better for your family than the poverty they had before. But we've been spoiled in the West: we've had it very, very good - unfortunately, the trend is definitely downward. The end result may have some aspects of each of communism, fascism, nazism, and feudalism. Not looking forward to it ...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Urmom-ts8gp That seems to be a standard thing non-Christians feel obliged to say to Christians. You think we don't know? I even put in my comment, "IF you're so inclined." Get your guidance from wherever you want, but I recommend the Bible. It's a book of great wisdom, and it's also historically, scientifically, and prophetically accurate. Western civilization was founded on it, and was very stable until we decided to start seriously running away from it in the 1960s, so that we're now in the period of Matthew 24:3-12 and 2 Timothy 3:1-7. Most of Revelation is already history, covering the last two millennia, and very difficult times are coming. Covid is only the beginning. Beware laws enforcing Sunday as a day of rest and worship, which is the mark of the beast. We can't put our faith in fellow humans; look to Jesus and observe His Sabbath (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown) instead. If you're so inclined.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rishitkhanna336 No, no, no; that's different. (For now. The World Economic Forum wants you not to own anything, but to rent and subscribe to everything, but we're only partway there.) My point is, you pay your property taxes and expect the government to maintain your environment (city, neighbourhood). You pay your rent and expect the landlord to maintain your environment (building). If you don't pay your property taxes, you eventually lose your home. If you don't pay your rent, you eventually lose your home. So, even though they're not supposed to be the same thing, effectively, they are.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Artessnow I think you're missing my point. I'm making a cynical joke about white guilt: how, these days, countries like Canada and Australia are sucking up to the native peoples of their land, apologizing for taking "their" land and everything they've done in the past, kissing their butts and "compensating" them billions of dollars (which generally disappears), and putting an "indigenous" perspective on every school subject. In my part of Canada, every school assembly starts with a Treaty 6 acknowledgment, mentioning how we're on the traditional land of several native peoples, blah, blah - and there's usually not even anyone from those native peoples present. This is the same across Canada and in other former British territories. So if Argentina artificially planted some indigenous people from Patagonia on the Falklands, the Brits would be forced to acknowledge their traditional claim to the islands, and going to war would be a "hate crime" against them. I'm only half-joking.
2
-
@Artessnow I don't identify as "my people." For the record, I'm as white as they come: a bunch of European mixed together. But I'm not proud nor ashamed of that, because I didn't pick my genes, nor where I was born (Canada). Consequently, I don't treat anybody differently from anyone else, based on things beyond their control. I know that white British, Americans, Australians, Canadians, South Africans, etc. did nasty things to nonwhites all over the world. But my direct ancestors weren't part of that - and even if they were, I'd feel no guilt about it; I wasn't involved, and I don't speak for them. I represent only myself. So I resent white people trying to tell me I have to feel guilty for being white - and I especially resent "affirmative action" and other official racism implemented to redress past racism. All racism is evil. And the supposed "remorse" for past wrongs has gone insane, to the point that "white" countries are trying to guilt themselves out of existence, erasing and rewriting their histories, and giving priority over their lifelong, taxpaying citizens to recent immigrants, and native peoples who suck at the government teat, while doing nothing but complaining about the government. So yeah, back to the topic: If the Argentinians moved some of their natives to the Falklands, the Brits may just sign over the islands without a fight, for woke points ...
2
-
Stop messing with infinities. The sum of all integers is infinite. If I have one brick, and pile two more on it, then three more, and so on, forever, I will have an ever-increasing number of bricks. I can expect to "reach" infinity bricks. It will be a huge mountain, but one I would die on. The fact that string theory depends on the -1/12 result is enough to prove that string theory is BS.
1-1+1-1+ ... = 0 because every 1 is cancelled by a -1. I can play games like Numberphile: (1-1+1-1+1-1+...) = (1+1+1+...) + (-1-1-1-...) = infinity + negative infinity = 0. If I have one brick in the pile, and remove it, and return it, and remove it, etc. forever, I can expect to have no pile at all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
OK, set aside the actual criminal law, and civil lawsuits. If someone has committed a violent act against you, should he forfeit all his rights, even his life? In this case, if the perp had been killed, he wouldn't have endangered hundreds more people in the chase. Any perp, even if he's running away, could still come back for you, or harm others. Your taking him out would be a benefit to society, whereas his continued existence would be a menace to society. Discussion?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@waterworka1 Yeah, my comment was a bit simplistic but also statistically sound: better-educated people have fewer kids, at the individual and national scales. Now, education and intelligence are not the same thing, but there is a strong correlation. There are other factors, too: People of average intelligence and below often hate smart people: smart kids are teased and bullied in school, leading to low self-esteem, and stupidity is glorified in the entertainment industry while intelligence is dismissed as nerdy, or even vilified. So smart kids will pretend to be dumb to fit in far more often than underachievers will play smart; the latter is pretty difficult, and why would they? They're cool anyway. And smart people can do stupid things, while it's pretty rare for foolish people to do smart things. Plus, people are often led by their feelings rather than their brains, which often goes poorly. So the overwhelming advantage, unfortunately, goes to stupidity.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kittty2005 You know what I mean by "reason" ... instinct, senses, whatever. Or, trivially, everything happens for a "reason" ... Anyway, I doubt the bird had anything to do with breaking the rope. In fact, I imagine it was probably an avian would-be hero, trying its best to hold the rope together, one foot tightly gripping each frayed end, gritting its teeth and sweat drops bursting from its forehead, until it could grip no more ... end of the Audu-bon voyage ...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@randomutubr222 "Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." I'm in Canada, and that's as much research as I've done. To me, that should squash any state's mucking around with, e.g., nationally granted gun ownership rights. But maybe there's some twist to it; I know that jurisdictional jiggerypokery happens here, e.g., recently the feds have been implementing national health care plans, even though health care is explicitly a provincial responsibility. Perhaps our national constitutions, charters, etc. just don't mean anything anymore.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I said the same thing a few years ago, when Canada began letting others in willy-nilly, who have no belief in, nor respect for, our language(s), traditions, and values. "Let them in!" our people cried (well, the lefties, anyway). But very few, if any, volunteered to take these wonderful newcomers into their own homes. Soon, there were no available hotel rooms, much more difficulty for Canadians to find jobs, and a housing crisis.
1
-
@VColossalV Yes, octopuses are intelligent; I recommend Mark Rober's "Octopus vs Underwater Maze." But there is much evidence that octopuses are curious, and none that they feel love or appreciation, so I'm going with an investigative probe, especially considering that everything else about this video is fake (i.e., scripted, and filmed at least partly in an aquarium), so I don't buy this "hug" idea for one second. See how the "seafloor" keeps changing; see how the robot octopus is near the real one in the tube to give it the coconut, then far away for a while, and then, all of a sudden, near again for the "hug." Be suspicious that the perfect half-coconut was in close proximity to the bamboo, and that they have the exact same diameter; question why the coconut is spotlessly clean inside, and how the robot "found" it and put it on its own head. Wonder why they need this "spy" robot, when they surround the scene with other cameras anyway. Most tellingly, see how the real octopus's suckers press against a glass wall (between it and us) at 2:57. I urge you to watch these nature videos with a critical eye; I've seen many obvious fakes.
1
-
@VColossalV (I'm reposting this since it seems to have disappeared.) Yes, octopuses are intelligent; I recommend Mark Rober's "Octopus vs Underwater Maze." But there is much evidence that octopuses are curious, and none that they feel love or appreciation, so I'm going with an investigative probe, especially considering that everything else about this video is fake (i.e., scripted, and filmed at least partly in an aquarium), so I don't buy this "hug" idea for one second. See how the "seafloor" keeps changing; see how the robot octopus is near the real one in the tube to give it the coconut, then far away for a while, and then, all of a sudden, near again for the "hug." Be suspicious that the perfect half-coconut was in close proximity to the bamboo, and that they have the exact same diameter; question why the coconut is spotlessly clean inside, and how the robot "found" it and put it on its own head. Wonder why they need this "spy" robot, when they surround the scene with other cameras anyway. Most tellingly, see how the real octopus's suckers press against a glass wall (between it and us) at 2:57. I urge you to watch these nature videos with a critical eye; I've seen many obvious fakes.
1
-
@angelmartin7310 First, if you haven't read my other comments in this thread, please do. Second, from a Christian perspective, though God is love (1 John 4:8), there is a sharp divide between humans and animals. Humans are the only creatures explicitly said to have free will (e.g., Deut 30:19). It is impossible to feel real love without free will, and the cutoff point of complexity at which animals can be said to even have free will is indistinct. Can deep-sea sponges feel love? They don't even have brains. How about plants, protists, and rocks? Does your dog even really, truly love you as a human can? Hard to say. Also, God created Satan (originally Lucifer, who went astray) and Satan certainly is not love, and cannot love - and even some people, such as extreme narcissists, are incapable of feeling love. But, back to the video. Saying that this octopus engaged in an act of affection is the capstone falsehood of this completely fake video - made by liars who follow Satan, the father of lies - and the danger of it is that people who believe this story may be persuaded to believe anything that is presented to them as "science."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marthas.4456 Thanks; I really appreciate your perspective. Yes, the West is limiting speech, movement, and freedom in general. But why is that? Because they are becoming socialist. I know quite a few people from the former Eastern Bloc, who lived under communism, and they are under no illusions where the West is heading. Socialism is the thin end of the wedge to totalitarianism. Socalism is not about the good of the people; it's about control of the people. There are the privileged few, and the enslaved underclass. Capitalism is THE SAME - except, under capitalism, people can, at least theoretically, improve their lot, with some effort. There is no such option under socialism: everyone must be equal - equally POOR (except those at the top). But you're right: it's all BS, all a show, all controlled by some very rich narcissists who pit the people against each other through ideology.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You can believe in God because the Bible explains this evil. He created an angel, Lucifer, who was good and perfect, but became a narcissist (Ezekiel 28:12-19). He took dominion of the world from Adam & Eve, because they chose to follow him rather than God (Genesis 3). Yes, Satan now runs the world (Matthew 4:8-9), and people eagerly follow him, because they'd rather be their own god (which is narcissism, following Satan by copying him) than obey and be accountable to the real God. Like Satan, they make their own rules, they do what they want, and they seek power at the expense of others. This is why people are evil to each other. Why does God allow this? He has to, because He gave us free will (Deuteronomy 30:19). If He prevented us from doing evil, we would not be free. If He punished us for doing evil immediately, no one would be alive today (Romans 6:23). But take heart; this is only temporary. He will soon repay all evil (Romans 12:19). Follow Jesus, and you will experience a better world (Psalm 37:11; Matthew 5:5). Follow your own heart, and this world is the best you'll get (Jeremiah 17:9; Ezekiel 33:11; Rev 21:8).
1
-
@Urmom-ts8gp Enforced Sunday observance laws are the mark of the beast. To receive something in the forehead is to agree with it. To receive something in the hand is to go along with it by your actions (whether you believe it or not, even out of convenience to avoid trouble).
A seal of authority has someone's name, title, and domain. God's seal is the Sabbath: Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the Lord [His name] made [His title: Creator] heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is [His domain], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." In the last days, we are to worship God by observing the Sabbath. Notice the similar terminology in Rev 14:7: "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters."
We will be saved by accepting the seal of God, or lost by accepting the mark of the beast (in the forehead or hand; Rev 14:9-10). Sunday observance, I'm guessing, will be brought in using climate change as an excuse: "Remember how the air cleared up during the covid lockdowns? Let's take a day off each week to save the planet." Anyway, we'll believe what we want, and see what happens.
1
-
@lesliefranklin1870 The government doesn't care about you. They don't care if you die, as long as you pay your taxes. Societies in which people snitch on each other for not obeying illogical, harmful government mandates are totalitarian, and they are run by the most evil of people. Anyone who is more loyal to such a government than they are to their friend, family, or neighbour - i.e., the people who care about them - is therefore among the most evil of people. I was expecting "friend/family/neighbour" examples, but this case, involving a person such as this, just shows that covid restrictions are for the masses, not their rulers. Unlike the masses, he was at liberty to attend this dinner, and it doesn't matter that he was found out, and I doubt he's actually sorry. No real repercussions for him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the '90s, I was fascinated and excited by AI and CGI. I thought it was all brilliant. Now I hate it all - because it's FAKE. I don't understand why we're in such a rush to make everything fake now, and why we eat it up. Fakery is dishonesty and falsification; it is lying. Way back, publishers had to put a disclaimer on any image that was computer-modified. That didn't last long; now it's the norm. And now, artificial intelligence, artificial art, artificial music, even artificial drivers (self-driving cars). Fake videos, fake news, reviews, and YT comments; everything has to be fake. But apparently people don't mind being lied to, I guess because they've been lied to for so long that they have little grounding in truth, facts, and reality, which is why they're so easily manipulated. THAT is the danger of AI. As Beato said, "people won't care that it's AI, as long as they like the song." Yes, and people will also accept anything as long as it's "for their safety and security", or "for the planet." "I don't care if AI spies on me; I have nothing to hide." Ultimately, of all things, AI is best at surveillance, manipulation, and censorship. God help us in this increasingly digital - and manipulable - world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FrxBass Oh, right; I should defer to someone who speaks and thinks the octopus language, who was raised by octopuses in the octopus civilization of octopustown.
Sorry, just kidding; you didn't deserve that. But I do have some serious advice: Don't trust everything that's presented as "science". These frauds saying that this octopus engaged in an act of affection is the climactic falsehood of this completely fake, scripted video. Note that the real octopus is never shown to be in actual danger of the sharks. Also note how the seafloor keeps changing from scene to scene (plants appear and disappear, and there's not even any background at 0:55 - it's an aquarium!). And the spy octopus is close to the real one to "give it the coconut", then far away to be "attacked by sharks", then suddenly near the real one again to "get the hug". At 2:57, the real octopus is unquestionably inside an aquarium: Some of the white debris is stationary on the near glass, while other bits float around, and the octopus's nearest tentacle stops unnaturally where it presses against the glass. So, now do you believe anything they say? It is obvious that octopuses are intelligent and curious, but there is NO evidence that they feel love or appreciation. And why would they? They do not socialize except to mate or fight, and they never help each other. This video isn't science, and it's not even entertainment - it's deception.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@angelle-vx3et 1. Who has proven that felines feel friendship, gratitude, or love? Cats can show that they LIKE you (source of food and warmth), but do they LOVE you? That is a HUGE leap. And we can't be certain that acts that seem like love (e.g., the "self-sacrifice" of birds pretending to be injured to lead predators away from their nest) aren't just instict. 2. Humans, in general, can feel friendship, gratitude, and love. Exceptions exist, but don't invalidate the point. They're EXCEPTIONS. 3. If you believe anything in this video is as the narrator describes, I can only say (with love :) ), stop being naive. The statement that the octopus is "hugging" the robot out of appreciation is ludicrous, unsupported speculation at best, and a lie at worst.
1
-
1
-
@ I've watched an interview and some clips on YT, including the "hug" scene. The octopus's gestures can generally be attributed to curiosity, exploration, and investigation. What we can gather for sure is that she had this big creature constantly in her life, which she eventually determined not to be dangerous. This does not mean she accepted him as a "friend"; she just tolerated his presence. Even the "hug" - well, there's no evidence that an octopus understands the amicable or social nature of a hug (remember, it's a fundamentally solitary creature), so we really don't know why she clung to him. She could have simply appreciated his body heat. I used to catch garter snakes as a kid, and, even though they resisted at first, eventually they'd voluntarily wrap around my hand and not be inclined to leave, even if I held them back near the ground. This doesn't mean they "loved" me; they just liked my body heat. Octopuses apparently exhibit some more primitive emotions, such as fear, anger, and even frustration, but friendship and love are far more complex. If you believe anything in this video is as the narrator describes, I can only say (with love :) ), stop being naive. The statement that the octopus is "hugging" the robot out of appreciation is ludicrous, unsupported speculation at best, and a lie at worst. We have to be careful how much we anthropomorphize animals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Recently, a couple of nearby cities reduced their default speed limits from 50 to 40 km/h (roughly 30 to 24 mph). Why? Supposedly, so a child/pedestrian would have a better chance of surviving if hit. Why NOW? Have our bodies become more fragile in recent years? Have we not known all these decades that slower speeds are safer? And - how much safer are they, really? Six mph matters that much? Speed is the ONLY factor, and not where or how the pedestrian is hit? Well, recently, my rather small city decided to do its own complete study and follow their lead, even though, as far as I know, no one has been hit in recent memory, and I've been here almost 20 years. All that time and money to do a study to implement a policy to ape the nearby cities, which they were probably going to do anyway, to improve on a statistic of zero pedestrian collision injuries/fatalities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The "let the world solve the problem" approach, which can also be called the "go ahead and find out" approach, has the drawback of wasted time, effort, and money. It's only a good strategy (actually, the only strategy) if you know for sure that the person will never be convinced. Otherwise, arguing up front might convince the person of your point, keeping them from blundering ahead, saving that time, effort, and money.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Recently, a couple of nearby cities reduced their default speed limits from 50 to 40 km/h (roughly 30 to 24 mph). Why? Supposedly, so a child/pedestrian would have a better chance of surviving if hit. Why NOW? Have our bodies become more fragile in recent years? Have we not known all these decades that slower speeds are safer? And - how much safer are they, really? Six mph matters that much? Speed is the ONLY factor, and not where or how the pedestrian is hit? Well, recently, my rather small city decided to do its own complete study and follow their lead, even though, as far as I know, no one has been hit in recent memory, and I've been here almost 20 years. All that time and money to do a study to implement a policy to ape the nearby cities, which they were probably going to do anyway, to improve on a statistic of zero pedestrian collision injuries/fatalities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Spacetime" does seem intuitively wrong to me as well. These quantum theorists & physicists may be correct, and they say they've done experiments to verify they're correct, and that satellites wouldn't work if they weren't correct, and so on. So I'm not arguing with them, since I'm no expert. But to me, a practical definition of time is that it is synonymous with change (or motion). If there were no time, nothing could move, because motion requires time, and so the universe would be a still photograph, or sculpture. On the flip side, if there were no motion, there would essentially be no time. We measure the motion of objects relative to the motion of other objects, e.g. the hands of a clock. (That's MY theory of relativity!) But since NOTHING would move - even the clock hands - there would essentially be no time, since we only perceive time through change. Again, the universe would be a still photo. Even figuratively, if we come across a town where everything is as it was hundreds of years ago (Amish community?), we say "time has stood still here" because there has been no change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've lost interest in the current work of pretty much all the bands I listened to as a teen in the '80s (if they're still around). Many bands start out with a fresh, unique sound, partly because of innate creativity and having something to say, but also because they have nothing to lose. As they become more popular, they get "safer". Prime example: Simple Minds. Their late-'70s/early-'80s stuff is quirky and exploratory, with interesting melodies and ideas, up to "Sparkle in the Rain." But they got famous, and less experimental, and more run-of-the-mill. In general, I'd say age is also a general factor in the diminishment of an artist's creative spark (Tori Amos, apparently, being one exception; I'll have to start listening to her again).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@goranmilic442 Every healthy, successful, properly functioning society is founded on the nuclear family. And though it is true that male and female gender roles vary somewhat among societies, there are two of them. When men start acting like women or vice versa, or all this "in-between" stuff happens, society crumbles. If you don't believe me, take it from a lesbian feminist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ&ab_channel=Gravitahn
What I mean by words changing meaning "naturally" is that they change their meaning gradually, organically, over time, through common usage, with no agenda.
man: an adult male human being
male: the sex that typically has the capacity to produce relatively small, usually motile gametes which fertilize the eggs of a female
woman: an adult female human being
female: the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs
human: a bipedal primate mammal
But if someone loses their feet in an accident, are they still human? Of course they are.
If a man is turned into a eunuch by his slave master, or loses his genitalia to a grenade, is he still a man? Of course he is. If a man chooses to have his genitalia removed surgically, and have a hole drilled into him instead, and have fat injections (or whatever they use) to make two big lumps in his chest, is he still a man? Of course he is. Is he a woman? No; he's a mutilated man. The hole in his crotch and the lumps in his chest are no different from piercings or tattoos. He's not an infertile female, either; he never had "the capacity to bear young or produce eggs" and he never will, in theory or by definition. He will never be a woman. So why is he still a man? In theory and by definition, at least he used to have the capacity to produce sperm. Also, there's the Y chromosome. You cannot have males without the Y chromosome, and a woman who "feels like a man" and mutilates herself pretending to become a man has the similar problem of always being stuck with XX chromosomes. AND YET THEY SAY that a trans man IS a man, and a trans woman IS a woman. And because of this thinking, women are defeated and seriously injured in competition with men, and children are mutilated. And people can be "canceled," or lose their jobs, or go to jail for disagreeing. This is tyranny; this is newspeak; please read 1984 by George Orwell.
There are very rare cases of hermaphroditism. I mean no disrespect to such people, but these cases are called, more or less generously, "aberrations," "deformities," "mutants," and "freaks," because they're abnormal; such cases should not be used in a general argument.
I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm pointing out how the deliberate redefining of words - which has been going on a lot recently (e.g., "safe and effective") - is dangerous, and is a standard tactic of totalitarian regimes throughout history. Be careful what you accept, is all. It may seem innocuous now, but see where things lead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wrinkleypinkley Nationalism is pride in one's country, and is exhibited by people of all countries, under all regimes. Technically, there are different types of authoritarianism besides fascism, but, for the average person under authoritarianism, it doesn't make much difference. Though you are right that global fascism is coming hard and fast, the term "Nazi" means "nationalist socialist," which by definition is left-wing. Capitalism enshrines the individual. Socialism erases the individual, turning everyone into group-thinkers, which makes totalitarianism possible. Such people are called "useful idiots" by communists. Yuri Bezmenov warned us about what is going on today, in 1984.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4kHiUAjTvQ
1
-
@voxsvoxs4261 In velocity calculations, we measure the motion of one thing not against time itself, but relative to the motion of another thing whose motion is regular. If a car travels 100 km and the minute hand of a watch goes from 12 back to 12 in the same time (an event which we define as an "hour"), we say the car is going 100 km/h. Really, they are both objects that are moving because some force compels them to, and we notice this change, and that's what we call "time". "Time" is just our word for our perception of change. There is no change in a photo, therefore, no time. If we visit the town we grew up in 30 years later and nothing has changed, we say "there has been no passage of time here." If every object in the universe stopped moving relative to all others - i.e., no velocity - there would be no "time."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
4:37 That's exactly how the French say it: "Je veux plus que doubler mes abonnés." So it sounds normal to them; with practice, it could sound normal to English-speakers, too. I agree with you in general; I myself am one to frequently split infinitives, but your example is also peculiarly exceptional, because people consider "more than double" to be a verb phrase, so, obviously, breaking it up and putting "more than" elsewhere means something completely different. On the other hand, "to boldly go" = "boldly to go" = "to go boldly", and if we commonly practiced either of the latter, it would sound more normal to our ears.
13:35 I don't have a problem with ending a sentence with a preposition, either, but "this is the sort of pedantic nonsense up with which I will not put" is, again, a strange example, because "put up with" is, again, a verb phrase, meaning "tolerate". Churchill didn't mess it up properly; it should be "This is the sort of pedantic nonsense which I will not put up with", which means "This is the sort of pedantic nonsense which I will not tolerate". Similarly with the verb phrases at 13:35:, "think over" means "consider", so "that's something we need to think over" means, "that's something we need to consider"; "get into" means "discuss", so "it's an issue we need to get into" = "it's an issue we need to discuss" = "it's an issue we need to talk about"; and "reckon with" also means "consider", so "a myth we need to reckon with" = "a myth we need to consider". You're not ending the sentence with a preposition; you're ending it with a verb phrase.
19:25 "Less than" and "or less" are natural because "100 miles", "$2000", "25 words", and "four hours" are considered amounts, not counts of individual miles, dollars, words, and hours. 21:09 "Do you have more or fewer" would, again, be more natural-sounding if we used it more. 21:24: On the other hand, "the less reasons you find" is wrong, because you would have to consider individual reasons, not an amount of reasons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Is it negativity, or realism? I've been on this planet a few decades now, and I can't think of anything that's gotten better since I was a kid in the '70s & '80s. Well, technology did get better until about the zeroes; flat screens were particularly great; now they and everything else electronic spies on you. I used to cheer for AI in the '90s; now I hate it, as it's mainly used for lying, spying, and censorship. Search engines used to be like mind readers (looking at you, Google); now most of what you get is entirely irrelevant (looking at you again, Google). Sensible values that hold society together are being rapidly eroded. Movies and TV shows are propaganda. The news is propaganda. And like Louis says, nothing is fixable. Wheelchairs are (or at least, used to be) just pipes and tires ... now we need "open source" wheelchairs in order to fix them? EDIT: I find myself in the dystopia I read about in "1984" in 1984.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yesplatinum7956 So, by your own words, " 'God doesn't exist' is not a fact." This means you're not really sure, which means you're actually an agnostic. I am completely respectful of that. I am also respectful of atheists, because I was there once; it's easy to be dismissive of something you are completely ignorant about. However, I do my best to base my beliefs on facts and logic, which eventually ruled out evolutionism. Good science is based on experiment and observation (the "scientific method"). No one has created a cell from rocks, and no one has observed one creature give rise to another with a completely different body form - making evolution unscientific. On the other hand, I find it logical to believe in the existence of God, because 1. intelligent design of life (by a Being outside our universe and its rules) is the only alternative to life creating itself; and 2. history, archaeology, archaeology, geology, geomorphology, astronomy, biology, physics, and prophetic fulfillment all support the veracity of the Bible, i.e., the existence of the God of the Bible as our Creator. The existence of Jesus is very well supported extrabiblically, and His life on earth, in itself, fulfilled hundreds of Old Testament prophecies (including the place of His birth and the method of His execution). Bible prophecy has been coming to pass for thousands of years; e.g., we are currently experiencing Matthew 24:3-12 and 2 Peter 3:3-7. The more you study the Bible, the more consistent it becomes, both within itself and with the world we observe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hanker8hg7 Right off the top: I'm a Christian, but sorry, I have to disagree. I actually observe the sky now & then, and everything I see corresponds to the heliocentric model, and I have no problem with that. Jesus made "the worldS," (Hebrews 1:2 & 11:3), which I understand to be others like our own, orbiting their stars. I haven't seen a flat-earth model that makes any sense (e.g., in all of them, we'd be able to see both the sun and moon at all times, and the moon phases wouldn't exist). I'm also okay with some of the Bible being metaphorical or poetic, and not literal. If the earth is literally God's footstool, why aren't we always able to see His feet? Also, when I search for "Pastor preaches flat earth", YT doesn't give me any results like what you describe. Please provide a link.
1
-
@hanker8hg7 I go by the Bible, science (unbiased science confirms the Bible), and logic. Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth ..." Job 26:7 "He ... hangeth the earth upon nothing." The only way the earth can appear circular, no matter what angle you look at it from, is if it is a sphere. A former pastor of mine actually knows ancient Hebrew, and tells me that the word for "circle" also means "sphere", depending on context. Also, empty space is, for all intents and purposes, "nothing".
You didn't answer any of my questions. There are so many common-sense phenomena that don't work in a flat earth model, e.g., when you look into the southern sky from Tierra del Fuego, Cape Town, or Tasmania, you see the Southern Cross. This means that the south pole is a point, like the north pole. On a plane, they would all be looking "outward" and see different stars.
You would not have a globe earth with a big bang, either: all you would have is a pretty even dispersion of particles throughout the universe. Matter from a big bang would not coalesce into a collection of rotating globular bodies that revolve around each other.
One other thing: a Christian doesn't say to people, "go away little one"; that is a haughty attitude (Proverbs 16:18).
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you comply with the system, you are "officially" scrutinized, and can be deported without mercy because your paper expires - even if you're the best, most wonderful and productive immigrant. I've seen it. But if you're "unofficial", you get housing and services and everything for free, indefinitely. Yes, maybe some get sent back, but I doubt it's a high proportion. I know plenty of first-generation immigrants, who are productive and want to to build their life here and contribute to Canada, and who are going the official route to become Canadians; they're around the 5-year mark in that process. Meanwhile, all the people we've brought in from a certain Middle Eastern country within the past few years are fast-tracked to citizenship - some within a year - in time to vote in the next election ... presumably for the guy who shoveled them in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Trinity, Rockschool, RGT GUITAR I'm not a psychologist. There are many reasons for mental illness: genetics, environment, trauma, and diet among them. Let's take anorexia nervosa. Someone thinks they're overweight when they're dangerously underweight. That person is called mentally ill. It follows that someone with a more severe bodily delusion (e.g. gender dysphoria) is also mentally ill - perhaps even more so. Such people need real help: counselling, therapy, whatever form it may take. They certainly don't need their delusion validated, especially not by giving them puberty blockers and mutilating their genitalia. Do you know the term "tomboy"? A girl who likes activities typically enjoyed by boys. I knew a few; they grow up to be perfectly-adjusted women, even if they continue to like "boy" activities. Boys who acted feminine were called things I probably can't say in a YT comment, and they usually turned out to be gay. In neither case did they have to be changed into the other sex - which is what we'd do to them now. Society at large is becoming psychotic, because we are catering to the delusions of a very small mentally ill minority, allowing them to force others to cooperate with their delusions. A "trans" movement usually signals the end of a civilization. If you don't believe me, take it from Camille Paglia, a lesbian feminist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8BRdwgPChQ&ab_channel=Gravitahn
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Usually an invasive species doesn't just replace another species in a niche. Usually they have many more side effects; one example they mentioned here is that grey squirrels destroy trees, while the red ones don't. If you look at it from the perspective of "survival of the fittest", well, who really cares: animals and humans alike invade and take over other lands. The biggest problem, of course, is when the interests of invasive species compete with human economic interests, such as the wild hogs in the US, Canada, and Australia destroying vast amounts of farmland, or zebra mussels clogging water and sewage systems in the Great Lakes, or the possible spread of disease. And often the invaders are just rougher and nastier, or simply less pleasant, than the local species, like fire ants and killer bees, or even crows displacing pretty, pleasant-sounding songbirds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@philroo1 I'm not stupid enough to get injured or killed for my stuff. But someone put it this way: You trade your life for money (i.e. put in your hours for your salary), and you trade your money for stuff. So, if someone steals your stuff, they're essentially stealing your life. Does that not count as "harm"? And time is worth far more than money, since you can't get it back. If you let someone get away with your stuff, it's not because it's "right" or "okay" for them to get away; you're just avoiding escalating the stupidity. I'm not an adherent of Islam, but cutting off the hands of thieves sends a pretty deterring message. On the other hand, California law now allows theft up to, I think, $950. The police won't even investigate. In the nonfiction book, "Gulag Archipelago," Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote how Soviet citizens were not allowed to defend themselves, for example, they couldn't draw a knife on someone unless they had a knife already drawn on them (good luck with that!) and couldn't stab someone unless they had been stabbed first. And of course they weren't allowed guns. The government often didn't prosecute thieves, and even encouraged criminal behaviour. They did this to keep the people unarmed and afraid, so that the government could better tyrannize them. Sound familiar?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
New versions of Windows are disgusting. Nothing necessary, wanted, or worthwhile has been added in recent editions - only bloatware, spyware, and heinous hardware compatibility requirements. I've got 8.1 and all my software running JUST as I like it. Upgrading Windows only means frustration with features I like being buried or removed; new features and limitations I dislike, don't want, and don't need; and effing around for hours with the OS and software to make the machine work how it was already working before. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unfortunately, "progress" by MS and the other big tech companies invariably includes gradually obsoleting your system, e.g., now your browser can't handle the latest web pages, etc. And all they talk about is "security": there are more and more "security" concerns with each new version. If they really cared about security, they'd trim their code and get it right, rather than having the common person beta-test everything they put out.
1
-
You can create these effects if you face the sun with your eyes closed, and vary the thinness of your eyelids, slowly or quickly (keep your eyes closed, but raise and lower your eyelids). Experiment with this, and you'll see beautiful, intense oranges, blues, reds, and lime greens that you don't see anywhere else. If you look at the sun through thin eyelids for a while, and then cover your eyes, you'll see those incredibly dark blues, like looking into a universe that's blue instead of black. Try things like stretching your eyelids and covering only one eye. I used to wonder about these colours and how I could create them somehow with paint - now I know I probably can't. Thanks for saving me the trouble!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@milanswoboda5457 The first thing I said was that fossil fuels pollute - that counts oil exploration, etc. But - wait for it - so does "green" energy! I didn't even mention the environmental damage caused by the manufacture of cars (gas or electric), wind turbines, solar panels, and massive car batteries. Did you watch that video?
Solar panels are mostly built in China with coal power, under no environmental regulations. Solar panels are less efficient than gasoline engines (~18% vs ~30%). Check out pictures of large solar farms. How much of the environment do you want to cover with "environmentally friendly" solar panels? PLUS they don't work in cloudy weather, winter weather, rain, or at night ... And if they're so great, why doesn't everyone have them on their roofs already? They're available! But who's going to pay for them? I personally know of several people who were sucked into putting panels on their roofs, thinking they'd be able to sell excess power to the grid. Hardly! Tens of thousands of dollars to maybe run their fridge and a few light bulbs. Solar power is okay for your little cabin in the woods - not a modern house.
I was not comparing bird fatalities due to wind power to those due to cats, etc., or the amount of land covered by solar panels compared to pavement. That's irrelevant.
Syncrude has paid $5.75 million in fines over the past decade for the deaths of about 1600 birds in tailings ponds (1600 ducks + 30 blue herons).
https://globalnews.ca/news/4809118/syncrude-fined-dead-great-blue-herons/
This US bird conservatory website article estimates annual wind turbine bird kills at between 500K & 1 million in the US alone.
https://abcbirds.org/blog21/wind-turbine-mortality/
What should the fines be for that? There seems to be a huge double standard regarding traditional vs. "eco-friendly" power sources, hmm? I'm all for a clean planet; my complaint is the blindness and hypocrisy of eco-types.
There is a hell of a lot of power in the atom. The mass of nuclear fuel rods required to run a power plant or aircraft carrier for YEARS is tiny. Correspondingly, the waste takes up a tiny amount of space, and we have the technology to build earthquake-proof storage. Meanwhile, batteries are already a huge problem for landfills; let's fill them (or our backyards) with millions more, shall we?
Plus, green energy is expensive! In Ontario, many people are paying more for their utilities than their mortgages, because they're farting around with wind. And environmentalism seems to be a Western problem only - in 2020, China built three times as many coal plants as the rest of the world combined. Where are the protesters? A few decades of this, and Western economies will be crippled. The Chinese will all be driving cars, while everyone in the West rides bicycles.
There really is no good answer. The only way we're going to live in harmony with nature is to have no industry at all. Back to medieval days - or even earlier.
1
-
@milanswoboda5457 Sorry, I edited my last paragraph: "the only way we're going to live in harmony with nature is to have no industry at all."
One other point while I'm here: Even if the entire world goes becomes a green-powered utopia tomorrow, if we still want our cars, batteries, wind turbines, diapers, feminine products, phones, TVs, fresh meat packed in styrofoam & saran wrap, etc., etc., etc., we're still going to need petroleum, which is the basis of all plastics & rubber.
1
-
@milanswoboda5457 Yeah, there are synthetic plastics & rubbers. All I can say about them is: maybe; we'll see. It seems that, often, the implementation of well-intentioned ideas is less than ideal, and often it's the third world that pays the price for the luxuries of the first. The problem I have with petroleum replacements made from crops is, they compete with food production. There are already many poor farmers under contract to grow crops for biofuels, at the expense of their own provision.
As for long-term harmony with nature, well, history shows us one civilization after another. They begin idealistically, but as they mature, the people claim to be getting smarter and wiser even as they become weak, stupid, and corrupt, ending in collapse. We're in the middle of such a decline right now - of the West and the world at large - which exactly mirrors the decline of Rome and other civilizations.
This is going to take an unexpected turn, but - I'm a Christian, and the lessons of the Bible and history are that the thing people do best is ruin things. I don't see us ultimately solving our own problems, and I don't think we'll be in harmony with nature until we live in the earth made new. And I don't think that's idealism; the Bible has successfully predicted history up until the present day and beyond. That's quite a tangent to the original discussion, but it's my opinion.
1
-
@Avelcaine You have a good point in that people have been making controversial art forever, with the full intention of disturbing people, and that's perfectly all right, in general. But there's "subverting expectations", and there's making a perverse, incoherent, mind-numbing, character-assassinating, universe-destroying mess, which was what The Last Jedi was. Rian could have done that all he wanted with an all-original film and characters; fine - but no; he F'd up the Star Wars franchise, which, over decades, had come to represent not just a mere film series but a significant part of Western culture. And I don't think he "missed shots" with the woke messaging ... nope; that was his intentional contribution to the societal destruction that Disney has been engaging in - and will continue to engage in - with this Rey film.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What are the evils of being conservative? They’re just people who think men should be men, women should be women, and kids should be kids. This has worked forever, and builds civilizations. They want their kids to learn math, science, history, and language in school, not their teachers’ sexual practices. This was NEVER okay; EVERYONE should keep their sexual practices to themselves. And movies should be about interesting characters and plot lines, not civilization-destroying propaganda. Most of all, conservatives just want to be left alone - but instead, they have to deal with craziness from everywhere because the crazies are in all the positions of influence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Replacing the fresh oxygen your brain needs with rebreathed carbon dioxide is most beneficial. Let's make it mandatory!
Whoever wants to wear a mask is free to do so - but then I shouldn't have to wear one, right? If I don't have a mask, what are you worried about? Don't you trust yours? Supposedly I can't get a germ from you, nor you from me, right? Same with a vaccine. If I haven't taken Bill Gates' population-control vaccine, what are you worried about? Doesn't your shot protect you from me, and me from you? If I am still fined, or otherwise forced, to wear a mask or get a vaccine, when everyone else has a mask or been vaccinated, then we will know for sure that this is not about covid at all, but control and compliance.
Masks also hamper and discourage interpersonal communication, and erase individuality. Having everybody look the same is a hallmark of totalitarian societies. And if you call the covid hotline on me for not social distancing, you will accept totalitarianism hook, line, and sinker; hope you enjoy the permanent lockdown and empty store shelves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They could easily simply say, "This is a five-year licence", or give a choice of, e.g., one-, two-, three-, five-, or ten-year licences, and let people choose. That's what they used to do. But lying is endemic in business and society today, so that's the default route.
1
-
1
-
Mental illness. Specifically, narcissism and obsessive disorder for sure, and possibly schizophrenia. She behaves exactly - and I mean EXACTLY - like my ex, who was all three of those things. Single-minded focus on a particular topic, obsession with her own importance, self-proclaimed victimhood, erratic and embarrassing behaviour; also extremely thin-skinned, demanding of attention, delusional, hypocritical, and ultimately self-destructive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A bat or tire iron is deadly force, and people can close distance quickly. John has addressed "shoot the legs" many times. There are big arteries in the legs, and arterial bleedout can kill someone in a couple of minutes. Also, it can be surprisingly hard to hit a body, let alone legs, in a stressful situation, and shooting at legs and missing could get the cop killed. (In several recent vids on this channel, people miss from point blank range.) For whatever reason, this cop didn't have less lethal, and anyway, wind would have blown taser prongs or spray off course - again, possibly resulting in the cop's death. Still, I wouldn't've fired so many shots, so quickly. A couple maybe, then wait and see.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Death is not "the price of reality". It is the price of sin (Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.")
The dead know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5 "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing"). Death is a sleep until resurrection (John 11:11-14 "These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth ... Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.) Not Lazarus, nor anyone who was resurrected, said anything about what it was like to be dead. They did not have "near-death experiences".
There are two resurrections. The first is at Jesus' return, in which His followers (believers; the saved) will join Him in the air - including the dead believers - and leave the earth (1 Thess 4:13-17); everything else is burned (2 Peter 3:10). Believers spend 1000 years with Jesus in heaven (Rev 20:4 "... they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years"); the rest spend that 1000 years asleep/dead (Rev 20:5 "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." This is parenthetical; "This is the first resurrection", which follows, refers to vs. 4.) Unbelievers (the wicked; the lost) are judged and cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15) (permanent death; nonexistence; the wicked do not receive eternal life), but believers do live forever in a new, perfect earth (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22; Matt 5:5; Rev 22).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MY IT days were in the '90s, when you bought software on a CD and it came with a licence key in the box. Software is not a physical object. If you install a program on a computer, and the computer dies and is irreparable, no one says you're entitled to a free replacement computer. But you should be able to reinstall your program on another computer. You paid for that program/licence; it wasn't broken; it wasn't the problem; you should still be able to use it. If the software CD broke, then, sure, you might have to buy another - if you weren't wise enough to make a backup copy as soon as you opened the box.
There are two real evils of subscriptions. One evil is when someone has paid for a "perpetual" or "lifetime" subscription of some sort, but then is told they must now pay regularly to use that software, or it will stop working. That should be considered breach of contract and illegal, but somehow the companies get away with it. (Maybe that scumminess is buried somewhere in the EULA.)
The other evil is that you pay an extortionate amount every year, rather than paying only once, and this can even be the same amount as the old one-time standalone price, but you pay it EVERY YEAR. And, despite paying for the same program many times over, you don't own it! You're only renting it, AND you are enslaved to the software company because you have to keep shelling out in order to use their software to access the documents you created with it; technically, then, you don't even own your own documents - your own information! It's even worse when you put all your documents on some cloud (i.e., someone else's computer) because then you REALLY don't own them: if your internet goes down - or the cloud provider shuts off access - you're screwed.
The overall problem is that, if you don't have the right to use (or alter, or repair) something you've paid for, you don't actually own it. You have paid for something, yet you don't own it. The company still owns it (theft) and, to a degree, they own you (enslavement), so they can dictate your life. Loss of your ability to own things = loss of your freedom.
1
-
@papimaximus95 Yes, but sounds like you're quoting the law. I respect the law, but I said, for this discussion, set it aside; I'm looking for people's internal sense of justice. (If what you wrote are your real feelings, fine.) My point is, someone who commits one violent crime is most likely going to commit more. That person is "evil." Should a "good" person, a victim or defender, be allowed to just smoke the perp, prevent future violence, and save the trial and incarceration costs? Would that be "good"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jellysquiddles3194 I understand what you mean, and I think we agree in general, but we have to get the terms right. An object that is "spinning" or "revolving around itself" is "rotating." An object moving in a circular path around another object is "revolving." Circle A revolves once around circle B, by the definition of the problem. Meanwhile, it rotates four times (the answer they were looking for but didn't provide), and any point of circle A comes into contact with circle B three times. Yes, the question wording is wrong; it should have been, "how many times will circle A rotate in total?" (but again, they didn't provide the right answer). And yes, in general, the speed of rotation of A could be independent of its speed of revolution around B, but it's stated that it "rolls," implying surface contact, which fixes the rotational speed of A based on its speed of revolution around B.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In the '90s, when Altavista was the premier search engine, Google came along and blew it away. It was like Google was psychic; you almost always found exactly what you wanted, immediately. Now it's a bunch of ads and irrelevant garbage - you search for something, and you get maybe three relevant hits, and you know bloody well there has to be more than that, and the best hit is far down the list, or not shown at all. Of course, Google owns YT, so YT's "search" is just as sloppy and their "hits" are just as irrelevant. I don't know why everyone's so keen on SEO (search engine optimization) for their web sites, when the searches return dreck regardless. The "smarter" they get, the worse the user experience becomes. We know they can do better; they just choose not to. It's pure haughty narcissism; they screw you because they can. We need alternatives.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1