Topic: Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists - page 34. (Read 80461 times)

No, you didn't put as much effort into this as I did. I have a long post here which you claim is all something you learned in high school, and yet your idiotic post about biospheres and physics indicates you didn't comprehend the material within it.

These movements are state subsidized, this isnt anyone's opinion and it isnt paranoia, its demonstrable.

if you take all of the men on earth and average their pay, and take all of the woman on earth and average their pay, one of the groups will necessarily be payed more than the other. the chances that they would happen to be payed the exact same amount is 1 against ~infinity. suppose its woman and not men, should men start menannist rallies to combat this injustice?

it isnt unfair, woman take huge leaves of absence when they are pregnant and nursing. should the employer be forced to eat this cost? if so why? if so than thats unfair to the employer. if not than the employer must offset this cost somehow, the natural conclusion is slighly lower wages for female employees.

im not sure which of the two groups is dumber than the other but the same principal applies from my earlier paragraph. by any metric you chose, if you average the scores of men and then average the scores of woman one of the two groups will necessarily score higher than the other. i dont know which of the two groups is more intelligent but one is necessarily more intelligent than the other. so by considering this fact we can deduce that by saying "girls got paid less than boys and they are not more stupid." this necessarily means that boys are more stupid. why do you suppose boys are more stupid than girls?

sure there was some serious sexist bullshit in the past. woman not being allowed to work or own land. but we are past all of that. at this point feminists dont want equal treatment, they already have that, they want sexism against men and that is why people dont like them.

I put just as much effort into this, and provided just as many specific, as you have. It's only fair  


Are you claiming that the earth will be dead and uninhabitable in 10 years? Why? Please provide proof. If you claim that we must protect the environment, otherwise we will be dead in ten years (or otherwise escape in some fantasy scenario), I'd like some concrete evidence. Because that is what you are saying.

You mean, like, with a DNA assembler, which we have had working models of since mid 90's, and which are at the point where we can actually print custom viruses and bacteria? Did you know that some scientist printed DNA to create a bacteria that stores the collected works of Shakespeare in it's DNA, just for the hell of it? Did you know that such devices are becoming so powerful and so cheap that they are now at the top of the list of threats for the NIH, who is worried about people being able to create, hack, and download custom viruses from home, making a viral pandemic something that a high school kid could start? The only final two steps to making growing animals from DNA a reality are perfecting cloning and artificial wombs. We're pretty close on getting those figured out, too.

Keep up with the times dude.


I'm sorry, did you have a point?

Liberal?  When i hear that word, i reach for mah revolver

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance by providing blanket answers with no specifics, and conflated with your immature and simplistic viewpoint.

But don't fret, for according to you, we'll all be as happy as clams living in biospheres on the surface of Ganymede in ten years. What a fucking idiot you are.

Lol, you can collect & preserve DNA all you want -- it's turning that DNA back into things that live & breed that's the tough part.  Jurassic Park much?


NASA?  The nanny-state sponsored waste of mah tax monyz?!   Not in my rugged individualist thread
That gobmint-subsidized trashtalk might cut it in your podunk cattery, but we got standards here.

Edit:  But hey, you can go and colonize Mars & Venus for me, just be careful of this guy:

Control, coersion, force, and violence. Evil.


Control, coersion, force, and violence. Evil.


Control, coersion, force, and violence. Evil.


Control, coersion, force, and violence. Evil.

I could have also said:


Ineffective and often counterproductive


At the least way too slow to respond, and at worst completely counterproductive, since written by those being regulated


Easily manipulated and at the whim of bought-and-paid-for politicians


Pointless, since land is still leased for mining and drilling. Also ineffective, since controled at the whims of bought-and-paid-for politicians.


However, I like my first answer best, which basically summarizes all your buller points, and you in particular, as "Controlling, coersive, manipulative, and evil."