/pol/
Well, (poll?
1. 23 MB PNE-
Anonymous (ID: - Fl
Cure cancer. Whites don' t starve.
1. 23 MB PNE-
Anonymous (ID: - Fl
Cure cancer. Whites don' t starve.
...
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
79 comments displayed.
#18
-
wimwam (08/31/2015) [-] Cancer. Feeding the hungry isn't a matter of how, just a matter of doing.
#77 to #48
-
anon (11/01/2015) [-]
This is a horrible video.
Maybe everyone can live in a landmass the size of texas, with a 'yard'. How big is this 'yard', the individual fails to mention? While on top of that, I'm assuming we have the luxaries of we'll say, the UK. So, heating, TV, etc. Where is that energy coming from? Wind? solar? Probably not. Hydro? Again, probably not. More than likely coal and petro. At our current rate, the developed world is doing a fair bit of damage to the environment. Now, We're also adding poor, shanty-town, and people in 3rd world countries, right? Cause he did say 'everyone'. The pollution would exist. The crime would spike because it's a high population area, and the need of workers would be fewer. anyone who worked in tourism destinations or travel would be laid off. Shipping and receiving of goods would be shipped off. Service sectors are already seeing lay-offs because of electronical tellers, rather than people, with 1 'supervisor' being able to watch over 4-6 cashes at once, while getting no more pay than a person who would have worked cash. Luxaries such as fruit from other regions would be expensive, as people who'd go an collect them/supervise Wouldn't want to be away from family.
So, With all that, that ends my argument against this. Oh wait, no it doesn't. Everyone is living in ****** texas now, and it consumes the whole state. Have fun driving out of state for a hospital or groceries, If you can drive, that is. Highways probably wouldn't exist, and depending on the number, would be pretty crowded.
PS, extinction is a ******* buzzword in this case. The different human races don't classify as different species. The proper word is 'extirpated', or removed from that region (but eventually there would be a boom, or a steadying in population). If someone want's to argue it's 'extinction of a culture' well, that term doesn't exist, sorry. it'd be the end of an era, or a dynasty. That's it.
As for the food, That's accurate- There's enough for everyone to be well fed, but they can't gain access to it because they're poor, or out of reach. I do really like how they state that 'over exploitation of the environment' is a risk, because it is. Soil salination is an issue, as many acres of land are becomeing too saline to produce the glycophytic crops that we tend to eat. While science can develop halophytic varieties of these species, them problem is growing faster than we can manage, and if 1 disease came along that could effect that genotype, well it's back to the drawing board. But what causes these real problems? what causes people to declare war, or embargos that would stop hungry people from getting the food? Oh, right, money. Money based on an economy, which under most circumstances works on supply and demand; which is influence by population of individuals who want the resources (demand) ergo: population. As for poverty, I can't see how it could be fixed, other than less people, more job openings (but of course, employment could lessen due to demand, but we'd need to observe that model).
"People started off poor" Holy **** , really. Going back to our primal times, when we were nomadic, and had to hunt and go berry-picking. That's pretty funny, because poor and rich co-exist. The rich (the ones which had access to nutrition, easily) survived, and that became us. The poor died. They couldn't make it, unfortunately, but it's evolution. For some reason, either they, or the region they traveled too, wasn't good enough, but either way, it's evolution (either in skill, or in risk assessment in not turning in another direction [behavioral]). Beyond this, community only allowed people to become 'richer' if they had skills to do so. They either leeched, or contributed. Those who contributed gained a potential surplus in stock, which they traded for more resources. Those who made good deals did well. Those who didn't, didn't do well. Continued in Pt 2 Because **** this video (not the poster, but the video).
Maybe everyone can live in a landmass the size of texas, with a 'yard'. How big is this 'yard', the individual fails to mention? While on top of that, I'm assuming we have the luxaries of we'll say, the UK. So, heating, TV, etc. Where is that energy coming from? Wind? solar? Probably not. Hydro? Again, probably not. More than likely coal and petro. At our current rate, the developed world is doing a fair bit of damage to the environment. Now, We're also adding poor, shanty-town, and people in 3rd world countries, right? Cause he did say 'everyone'. The pollution would exist. The crime would spike because it's a high population area, and the need of workers would be fewer. anyone who worked in tourism destinations or travel would be laid off. Shipping and receiving of goods would be shipped off. Service sectors are already seeing lay-offs because of electronical tellers, rather than people, with 1 'supervisor' being able to watch over 4-6 cashes at once, while getting no more pay than a person who would have worked cash. Luxaries such as fruit from other regions would be expensive, as people who'd go an collect them/supervise Wouldn't want to be away from family.
So, With all that, that ends my argument against this. Oh wait, no it doesn't. Everyone is living in ****** texas now, and it consumes the whole state. Have fun driving out of state for a hospital or groceries, If you can drive, that is. Highways probably wouldn't exist, and depending on the number, would be pretty crowded.
PS, extinction is a ******* buzzword in this case. The different human races don't classify as different species. The proper word is 'extirpated', or removed from that region (but eventually there would be a boom, or a steadying in population). If someone want's to argue it's 'extinction of a culture' well, that term doesn't exist, sorry. it'd be the end of an era, or a dynasty. That's it.
As for the food, That's accurate- There's enough for everyone to be well fed, but they can't gain access to it because they're poor, or out of reach. I do really like how they state that 'over exploitation of the environment' is a risk, because it is. Soil salination is an issue, as many acres of land are becomeing too saline to produce the glycophytic crops that we tend to eat. While science can develop halophytic varieties of these species, them problem is growing faster than we can manage, and if 1 disease came along that could effect that genotype, well it's back to the drawing board. But what causes these real problems? what causes people to declare war, or embargos that would stop hungry people from getting the food? Oh, right, money. Money based on an economy, which under most circumstances works on supply and demand; which is influence by population of individuals who want the resources (demand) ergo: population. As for poverty, I can't see how it could be fixed, other than less people, more job openings (but of course, employment could lessen due to demand, but we'd need to observe that model).
"People started off poor" Holy **** , really. Going back to our primal times, when we were nomadic, and had to hunt and go berry-picking. That's pretty funny, because poor and rich co-exist. The rich (the ones which had access to nutrition, easily) survived, and that became us. The poor died. They couldn't make it, unfortunately, but it's evolution. For some reason, either they, or the region they traveled too, wasn't good enough, but either way, it's evolution (either in skill, or in risk assessment in not turning in another direction [behavioral]). Beyond this, community only allowed people to become 'richer' if they had skills to do so. They either leeched, or contributed. Those who contributed gained a potential surplus in stock, which they traded for more resources. Those who made good deals did well. Those who didn't, didn't do well. Continued in Pt 2 Because **** this video (not the poster, but the video).
#78 to #77
-
anon (11/01/2015) [-]
Welcome back to "I'm ******* mad pt 2: Eclectic jiggaboo", Where I get butt-mad over this ******* 10 minute video and write a ******* master's thesis against this cock-sucker. This is around the point that I realize the original commenter only wanted to say 'there's enough food in the world for everyone, cure cancer is the answer,' and I totally agree with this. But **** this video.
'As our population grows, so does our standard of living,' Really? Are you certain that's a linear function, or that we only have a few data points so that it appears to be. I'm willing to bet that a slight decline would cause another spike of 'standard of living'. I wonder if this guy thinks this is causation. I'm willing to bet it's corelation. In the first few clips, he wouldn't mention how overpopulation could lead to war, poverty etc, which then lead to famine, but here, he's willing to move goalposts and say 'oh, because more people got together, these things were made, which made life better.' It's literally no different, and if you're going to acknowledge one one way, at LEAST point out both the viewpoints in the other.
Yes, we consume a lot, we produce a lot, and a certain subsection of people will share it- but rarely the one's in charge of producing. Donating food actually has some risks, and companies would rather throw it all out than take risks. it's pretty damn sad. But like I said in my first post, there's other issues. I'll return to soil salinization. That ability to produce more food in less land no doubt has a heavier impact in terms of what compounds are present in that **** .
"People who move to highly populated areas have a higher chance of climbing out of poverty than if they were in an area with fewer jobs and less opportunity." Well no **** , But this is also dependent on population. For instance, Higher population DOES potentially spell out 'more opportunity,' but it also spells out 'more competition'. Yes, poverty was always an issue, but like I stated, the rich survived. Some moved to prosperous areas (or in this day and age, followed more prosperous pursuits), and those who didn't, died. Now, we care a little more for those individuals, or at least some of us do.
"Removing people only puts the poor where they started" Well, he opened up a can of worms- Removing a select group of individuals (Those willing to help the poor, who are middle or upper-lower class). So I'll open up one of my own. With those 4 individuals gone, there are four jobs opened up. Are they higher up jobs? Cool, people will get promotions, and lower level jobs will have openings for these poor individuals, who will in turn want to help poor people more, because people are empathetic beings.
"if it takes more and more train cars to double, mathematically speaking, the growth rate is slowing" Yes and no. On a percentage base, yes, 1 person added to 9 makes 10%, while 1 added to 99 makes 1%. That isn't rocket science. But on issues like demand for food (thinking about areas of poverty) and environment (relevent everywhere) They still have the same demands whether they are the 1st individual or 100,000,000,000th. Also, 1 billion people every fifteen years is ******* hogwash. That is the current rate of growth; not total, as we've been around longer than 105 years. They're very interesting functions. The only reason I don't say 'It's the highest it has ever been' Is because it isn't in terms of percent, but on terms of raw number, it definitely is. In terms of percent, The actual graph would look similar to 1/x. In terms of raw number though, It does look exponential. This is an easy way to lie with statistics: use percent instead of raw numbers. but when we factor in issues like demand, environment, and others that I care less about, The raw numbers and demand that it puts on these other factors is more important.
Part 3 inc
'As our population grows, so does our standard of living,' Really? Are you certain that's a linear function, or that we only have a few data points so that it appears to be. I'm willing to bet that a slight decline would cause another spike of 'standard of living'. I wonder if this guy thinks this is causation. I'm willing to bet it's corelation. In the first few clips, he wouldn't mention how overpopulation could lead to war, poverty etc, which then lead to famine, but here, he's willing to move goalposts and say 'oh, because more people got together, these things were made, which made life better.' It's literally no different, and if you're going to acknowledge one one way, at LEAST point out both the viewpoints in the other.
Yes, we consume a lot, we produce a lot, and a certain subsection of people will share it- but rarely the one's in charge of producing. Donating food actually has some risks, and companies would rather throw it all out than take risks. it's pretty damn sad. But like I said in my first post, there's other issues. I'll return to soil salinization. That ability to produce more food in less land no doubt has a heavier impact in terms of what compounds are present in that **** .
"People who move to highly populated areas have a higher chance of climbing out of poverty than if they were in an area with fewer jobs and less opportunity." Well no **** , But this is also dependent on population. For instance, Higher population DOES potentially spell out 'more opportunity,' but it also spells out 'more competition'. Yes, poverty was always an issue, but like I stated, the rich survived. Some moved to prosperous areas (or in this day and age, followed more prosperous pursuits), and those who didn't, died. Now, we care a little more for those individuals, or at least some of us do.
"Removing people only puts the poor where they started" Well, he opened up a can of worms- Removing a select group of individuals (Those willing to help the poor, who are middle or upper-lower class). So I'll open up one of my own. With those 4 individuals gone, there are four jobs opened up. Are they higher up jobs? Cool, people will get promotions, and lower level jobs will have openings for these poor individuals, who will in turn want to help poor people more, because people are empathetic beings.
"if it takes more and more train cars to double, mathematically speaking, the growth rate is slowing" Yes and no. On a percentage base, yes, 1 person added to 9 makes 10%, while 1 added to 99 makes 1%. That isn't rocket science. But on issues like demand for food (thinking about areas of poverty) and environment (relevent everywhere) They still have the same demands whether they are the 1st individual or 100,000,000,000th. Also, 1 billion people every fifteen years is ******* hogwash. That is the current rate of growth; not total, as we've been around longer than 105 years. They're very interesting functions. The only reason I don't say 'It's the highest it has ever been' Is because it isn't in terms of percent, but on terms of raw number, it definitely is. In terms of percent, The actual graph would look similar to 1/x. In terms of raw number though, It does look exponential. This is an easy way to lie with statistics: use percent instead of raw numbers. but when we factor in issues like demand, environment, and others that I care less about, The raw numbers and demand that it puts on these other factors is more important.
Part 3 inc
#79 to #78
-
anon (11/01/2015) [-]
To give a simple example about lying with percents, lets pretend I have an unknown number of apples, and I give some to Funnyjunk every year, cause you guys are hungry. Last year, I was unable to feed all of you, but this year I announce that I have increased crop yeild by 100%. Funnyjunk Jeers, and I present them with their four apples. "We're still hungry," you demand, and I am beheaded (likely how I will be in the below comments). The same scenario happens, but last year I provided 180,000 apples, and we'll say there's 300,000 users. We now have a 60,000 apple surplus, for seconds. or whatever. Back to the case at hand: If he's going to talk about percents of this, he needs to talk about how efficient and sustainable crop growth is. If not put in perspective by unveiling how many apples we have, or how much carbon we're emitting, and look at tipping points, percents are (almost) irrelevent.
His traincar analogy is poor, maybe almost as poor as my apple analogy, but the people those cars represent will make more people, and the rate changes with each added train car.
Finally, useful, GOOD data, presented biasedly (unsurprisingly) in a downward inflection of his voice. "The global fertility rate...has been rapidly falling" This year, we hit 7 billion, and in seventy five years, we'll be back here again... there's two interesting parts to this- He knows when the global population will peak, but he doesn't give us a number, but it'll be above 7 billion. This number will drop by 1 billion every 20 years, in contrast to 1 billion every 15 years of growth. Around the time of the industrial revolution, the global population was estimated at 1bil, climbing to 2 billion by 1930. While he states an average (1 bil per 15 years) this is false; growth is not the linear function he makes it out to be. Some things were problematic before we hit 7 bilion and they only become more problematic the higher we go.
Yes, the growth rate is going to decrease. So what? he makes it sound like it decreasing NOW is bad, when it decreasing in 25 years is just 'oh it's a fact of life'. thing is, people were making way too many babies. Like 13-15 per clutch, and that's in monogamous regions of the world. Now even the pop is saying we can stop ******* like rabbits. This guy says a lot of things, but he doesn't dispute any of the issues of environment, which is related to demand.
Footnote, Tl;dr: **** this nerd, but thumb the poster, I got a good hate-on going. Feel free to thumb down my triple-posting ass. I'm ready.
His traincar analogy is poor, maybe almost as poor as my apple analogy, but the people those cars represent will make more people, and the rate changes with each added train car.
Finally, useful, GOOD data, presented biasedly (unsurprisingly) in a downward inflection of his voice. "The global fertility rate...has been rapidly falling" This year, we hit 7 billion, and in seventy five years, we'll be back here again... there's two interesting parts to this- He knows when the global population will peak, but he doesn't give us a number, but it'll be above 7 billion. This number will drop by 1 billion every 20 years, in contrast to 1 billion every 15 years of growth. Around the time of the industrial revolution, the global population was estimated at 1bil, climbing to 2 billion by 1930. While he states an average (1 bil per 15 years) this is false; growth is not the linear function he makes it out to be. Some things were problematic before we hit 7 bilion and they only become more problematic the higher we go.
Yes, the growth rate is going to decrease. So what? he makes it sound like it decreasing NOW is bad, when it decreasing in 25 years is just 'oh it's a fact of life'. thing is, people were making way too many babies. Like 13-15 per clutch, and that's in monogamous regions of the world. Now even the pop is saying we can stop ******* like rabbits. This guy says a lot of things, but he doesn't dispute any of the issues of environment, which is related to demand.
Footnote, Tl;dr: **** this nerd, but thumb the poster, I got a good hate-on going. Feel free to thumb down my triple-posting ass. I'm ready.
#66 to #43
-
rhodg (09/01/2015) [-]
Governments don't because they're corrupt and care little about their people, aid is often stolen to be either sold to the people the aid was originally intended to for stupid prices, or used by whomever stole said aid. I know I heard something about a Red Cross building being attacked the other week, prompting them to evacuate their staff from the country.
Generally, it actually tends to boil down to the fact that there's little to no law in those countries where people are hungry. Lack of Law & Order then proceed to no infrastructure for a country to build on, people who do whatever the **** they want (I.E, Steal the aid..) and the all the rest.
Generally, it actually tends to boil down to the fact that there's little to no law in those countries where people are hungry. Lack of Law & Order then proceed to no infrastructure for a country to build on, people who do whatever the **** they want (I.E, Steal the aid..) and the all the rest.
#60 to #44
-
thesecretbear ONLINE (09/01/2015) [-] Also the fact that governments sent food aid often don't have the means to distribute it. There are warehouses of corn and rice in Ethiopia just sitting there.
#46 to #44
-
captainprincess (09/01/2015) [-] So let's deal with those people then
And let the feeding continue
And let the feeding continue
#49 to #47
-
captainprincess (09/01/2015) [-] The old people dying of cancer, mostly
Shame that it also kills young people, though
Shame that it also kills young people, though
#50 to #49
-
ronjeremysweiner (09/01/2015) [-]
old people dying of cancer to me is natural population control
someone under the age of 60 dying of cancer is sad and we should work to prevent it, but hunger is just more serious of an issue.
someone under the age of 60 dying of cancer is sad and we should work to prevent it, but hunger is just more serious of an issue.
#52 to #50
-
captainprincess (09/01/2015) [-] But starving people is just a natural form of population control
Cancer is a disease that can be prevented and is more serious of an issue
Cancer is a disease that can be prevented and is more serious of an issue
#53 to #52
-
ronjeremysweiner (09/01/2015) [-]
true
but would you rather help a 30 year old man slowly deteriorating while watching his wife and kids slowly die of starvation or the 70 year old guy slowly dying in a bed surrounded by his family and close friends. both are sad but only one is tragic
but would you rather help a 30 year old man slowly deteriorating while watching his wife and kids slowly die of starvation or the 70 year old guy slowly dying in a bed surrounded by his family and close friends. both are sad but only one is tragic
#54 to #53
-
captainprincess (09/01/2015) [-] If the old man is my grandad and the starving family is people I never met before, then
take a wild guess
take a wild guess
#56 to #54
-
ronjeremysweiner (09/01/2015) [-]
so ten more years of your grandfathers life is worth more than a whole family's?
I bet your grandad would disagree with you on that one
I bet your grandad would disagree with you on that one
#58 to #56
-
captainprincess (09/01/2015) [-] He might
But I'm a human
I care more about my family than people I don't know that's just a fact of human psychology
Cancer isn't even population control
The chances of triggering some cancerous reaction is not increased for any individual if the amount of people increase
The likelihood of a case of cancer cropping up does, due to the law of averages or some ****
js
Cancer is unchecked cell growth
It's a biological failure in cell reproduction, one of the few things that old age doesn't disrupt all that much at all
organ failure is what kills old people, atleast those who die of 'old age'
Cancer might crop up more in the elderly due to them having been alive longer, and on a long enough timeline all probabilities eventually reach 100%
So yeah
And also eliminating cancer from the young is kinda important
Matters more to me than the nebulous problem of 'world hunger'
But I'm a human
I care more about my family than people I don't know that's just a fact of human psychology
Cancer isn't even population control
The chances of triggering some cancerous reaction is not increased for any individual if the amount of people increase
The likelihood of a case of cancer cropping up does, due to the law of averages or some ****
js
Cancer is unchecked cell growth
It's a biological failure in cell reproduction, one of the few things that old age doesn't disrupt all that much at all
organ failure is what kills old people, atleast those who die of 'old age'
Cancer might crop up more in the elderly due to them having been alive longer, and on a long enough timeline all probabilities eventually reach 100%
So yeah
And also eliminating cancer from the young is kinda important
Matters more to me than the nebulous problem of 'world hunger'
#69 to #58
-
shutupsocks (09/01/2015) [-] I would thumb your statement up again if I could. Well said.
#76 to #50
-
ChuckNorrisVsMRT (09/05/2015) [-] Food is simply an easier solution than cancer, cancer is such a wide term and covers so many related fatal diseases. Which is why we can't have "A cure for cancer" Because there probably isn't going to just be one cure. But food is a matter of greed, we have the resources but if we feed more people then they'll breed even more and we'll need even more food, if we had an infinite amount of food we could have an infinite amount of people, but we don't so we can't and there has to be a break point somewhere.
#72 to #18
-
internetnick (09/01/2015) [-]
Yeah, there will be no one cure for all cancers. It's going to take hundreds of years to get them all. While it will take that long for feeding the hungry, it COULD happen next week.
#5 to #2
-
klowserpok (08/31/2015) [-] >implying the original Canadiens don't have a more legitimate claim the that name
#35 to #34
-
wilburthegreat (09/01/2015) [-]
oh im a dumbass
school just started for us and im ******* tired
school just started for us and im ******* tired
#36 to #35
-
marmiteistasty (09/01/2015) [-] That's alright mate, happens.
School starts on the 9th for me, where you from anyway?
School starts on the 9th for me, where you from anyway?
#38 to #37
-
marmiteistasty (09/01/2015) [-] rip
Whatever I say about Quebec, can't deny that I just passed through a couple days ago. Even had a friend there. Left my car with him and came back to find that it was busted. No longer friends.
But hey, Canada!!!
Whatever I say about Quebec, can't deny that I just passed through a couple days ago. Even had a friend there. Left my car with him and came back to find that it was busted. No longer friends.
But hey, Canada!!!
#39 to #38
-
wilburthegreat (09/01/2015) [-]
hahhahahah what part of qubec btw you must have been somewhere really ****** because that almost never happens
#40 to #39
-
marmiteistasty (09/01/2015) [-] Montreal, but yeah I get that. I come through the airport a ton and this is the first time I've got anything, but that's probably cause my "friend" probably drove my car a bit and crashed it pretty bad.
I mean hey, what the **** could you have done to need to replace my ******* engine for?
On another note, do you guys have like english immersion schools like we have french immersion in Ontario?
Sorry if that's a stupid question and I'm doing the dumb.
I mean hey, what the **** could you have done to need to replace my ******* engine for?
On another note, do you guys have like english immersion schools like we have french immersion in Ontario?
Sorry if that's a stupid question and I'm doing the dumb.
#74 to #40
-
wilburthegreat (09/01/2015) [-] **wilburthegreat used "*roll picture*"**
**wilburthegreat rolled image**nah its fine we have a complete english school system set up beside the french one
but the problem is theres a law that if youre parents or grandparents didnt go to english school than you can go either.
that means that theres always problems with in between school fueds and its crazy
**wilburthegreat rolled image**nah its fine we have a complete english school system set up beside the french one
but the problem is theres a law that if youre parents or grandparents didnt go to english school than you can go either.
that means that theres always problems with in between school fueds and its crazy
#21 to #20
-
nagelbites (08/31/2015) [-] A large number of the people from quebec will treat another canadian like **** if they aren't fluent in french, despite most of the country not having the necessity of learning the language in day to day life. They will do **** like take as long as possible at a restaurant, not give answers despite understanding question, and just generally are cunts despite being canadian themselves. So most Canadians dislike quebec in return
#27 to #21
-
anon (08/31/2015) [-]
It goes much further than this.
For example, there are laws in Quebec forcing businesses to take down signs in English and only display french.
There have been cases where English speakers have been denied patronage at restaurants even when the restaurant staff speaks fluent English.
The radical Quebecois...I do understand and sympathize with there primary motive (they do not wish their culture to die out) but there methods, there attitude and all of this ******** that should be illegal in my free country make everyone outside of Quebec despise Quebec.
For example, there are laws in Quebec forcing businesses to take down signs in English and only display french.
There have been cases where English speakers have been denied patronage at restaurants even when the restaurant staff speaks fluent English.
The radical Quebecois...I do understand and sympathize with there primary motive (they do not wish their culture to die out) but there methods, there attitude and all of this ******** that should be illegal in my free country make everyone outside of Quebec despise Quebec.
#28 to #27
-
nagelbites (08/31/2015) [-] Exactly, you knew much more than I do on the topic but then again, I avoid going to Quebec.
#14
-
omegez (08/31/2015) [-] " **** Cancer" and "Let them Eat Cake", I wish laws and acts were called things like that
#10
-
rundas (08/31/2015) [-] So is this just making fun of the ******** forced moral choices in a lot of vidya?
#11 to #10
-
whiterabbitradio (08/31/2015) [-]
Maybe? I think it's just a humorous joke considering your a gangster that became the president right before aliens attack.
#16 to #10
-
thechosentroll (08/31/2015) [-] It makes fun of just about everything in vidya. I love the romance system. It's basically you going up to anyone and going "Wanna **** ?" "Sure.".
#42 to #16
-
wertologist ONLINE (09/01/2015) [-] Except for Ben King and Keith. If you try to get with King I think your character tries to get him to sign his book. As for Keith, I don't really remember, but I'm pretty sure you didn't bang him.
#64 to #42
-
growrp ONLINE (09/01/2015) [-] You don't. If you try to, he just says one of several lines. Here's a few:
"I know you want to, but I don't."
"Look you're my boss, I just can't let that dynamic get ruined."
"You're the President, I'm the Vice President. You're the leader of the Saints, I'm just one of your crew. You've taken over cities and toppled rival gangs, I've conquered Hollywood and have a name to uphold. It just wouldn't work between us, you see?"
"I know you want to, but I don't."
"Look you're my boss, I just can't let that dynamic get ruined."
"You're the President, I'm the Vice President. You're the leader of the Saints, I'm just one of your crew. You've taken over cities and toppled rival gangs, I've conquered Hollywood and have a name to uphold. It just wouldn't work between us, you see?"
#4
-
anon (08/31/2015) [-]
If you have to pick one, cure cancer. If it's a choice, neither. Slowing down the rate of human deaths will only accelerate the rate at which we overpopulate our planet. We might very well destroy ourselves before we learn how to live somewhere other than Earth. Wouldn't that just be the most pathetic end of our species?
#9 to #4
-
failtolawl (08/31/2015) [-] Ok, but if everyone is fed properly, then a larger percentage will be focusing on sustaining our planet.
It's the hungry ones that are overpopulating our planet so they can get more jobs to get more food.
It's the hungry ones that are overpopulating our planet so they can get more jobs to get more food.
#15 to #4
-
makomirocket (08/31/2015) [-] we'd have war when food/water/living space gets too low.
My theory is an invasion of Africa seeing as they're the weakest on the world stage politically, have loads of resources, and if REALLY pushed, America, EU, Russia and China would all rather that then war with each
My theory is an invasion of Africa seeing as they're the weakest on the world stage politically, have loads of resources, and if REALLY pushed, America, EU, Russia and China would all rather that then war with each
#25 to #4
-
bloodoffear (08/31/2015) [-]
We are soooo ******* far from capacity it's ridiculous. Modern engineering is only making food and resources more sustainable and available. The more people we have, the more scientists and engineers we have to figure this **** out and provide more housing, make islands, expand the ISS, grow food vertically in massive towers, **** like that. I seriously dont understand the "population problem", and dont think allowing unneccessary human death is any sort of "solution". This seems to be an unpopular opinion. By the time our species is truly running at capacity on the planet, there will be magnitudes more of us and magnitudes more knowlege available to make extraplanetary living viable. Even if we were at capacity at any point, our numbers would naturally dwindle down to a sustainable point, we wouldnt just all die at once and be extinct.
#17 to #4
-
anon (08/31/2015) [-]
Actually, curing hunger would go a long way in stopping population growth
Developed nations have a lower birthrate, 2 or less. That's because people in developed nations do not have to have kids to ensure they're taken care of when they're old
****** places like Uganda or something? Lots and lots of kids, because disease and hunger kills them. Also more labour for your farm. More than two survive
We'll have a population boom from those nations, but it will even out fast.
Developed nations have a lower birthrate, 2 or less. That's because people in developed nations do not have to have kids to ensure they're taken care of when they're old
****** places like Uganda or something? Lots and lots of kids, because disease and hunger kills them. Also more labour for your farm. More than two survive
We'll have a population boom from those nations, but it will even out fast.
#32
-
alltimetens (09/01/2015) [-] I feel that cancer shouldn't be our only priority. People with cancer usually have it better than people who are impoverished. And if you're unable to feed yourself sufficiently, you weaken your immune system and are left susceptible to other diseases. It's a huge mess.
My uncle was just told that he has about a month left to live due to lung cancer. But I'd still rather help the thousands of children who are being left to die from starvation.
My uncle was just told that he has about a month left to live due to lung cancer. But I'd still rather help the thousands of children who are being left to die from starvation.
#45 to #32
-
anon (09/01/2015) [-]
People with cancer have their cells ripping themselves apart to keep replicating in an excruciatingly painful attempt to self decimate. If you have cancer, your immune system is **** and you are susceptible to other diseases. Also you're going to die. And the implication that there aren't thousands of kids with cancer? What do you think "make a wish" was made for? It's made for kids who are going to die a painful death.
I don't care which one you pick, as both are good, but your reasons suck.
I don't care which one you pick, as both are good, but your reasons suck.
#75 to #45
-
alltimetens (09/01/2015) [-] Hunger is also very painful. I've gone without food for a mere 30 hours and I was already starting to feel intense pain. I can't imagine going a week. Or two weeks. Or months with just a few pieces of bread in my system.
I never said that cancer wasn't painful. But it really is nothing compared to hunger. Most people nowadays survive cancer and every day we are learning more and more.
There's a difference here because there's enough food for everyone. I feel terrible for a kid who has been diagnosed with leukaemia, but at the same time, it's their DNA that is to blame. On the other hand, a kid who dies from hunger is doing so because of political actions/warfare. Both of which are absolutely terrible.
I never said that cancer wasn't painful. But it really is nothing compared to hunger. Most people nowadays survive cancer and every day we are learning more and more.
There's a difference here because there's enough food for everyone. I feel terrible for a kid who has been diagnosed with leukaemia, but at the same time, it's their DNA that is to blame. On the other hand, a kid who dies from hunger is doing so because of political actions/warfare. Both of which are absolutely terrible.
#55
-
OldSnake (09/01/2015) [-] "You can't just get rid of hunger by feeding people cancer! That doesn't work!"
#71
-
schneidend ONLINE (09/01/2015) [-] I picked cancer, because the bill was titled " **** Cancer." That seemed more in line with a bill I would help write if I were a criminal-turned-icon-turned-politician.
#51
-
hudis ONLINE (09/01/2015) [-] Wouldn't both of those options potentially overpopulate the planet?
#63 to #51
-
strobler ONLINE (09/01/2015) [-] No. Nearly half of cancer deaths are from people that are over 70 years old, (which of course are sterile) the other part is not big enough to have an effect on the population (4 million each year << 7 billion).
As for feeding the poor, it has been shown that when people are in a bad spot, they often make more children so they can work more to get food or other goods. Imagine the difference of the size of a 1st world family and a poor 3rd world one. The poor one is most of the time larger.
As for feeding the poor, it has been shown that when people are in a bad spot, they often make more children so they can work more to get food or other goods. Imagine the difference of the size of a 1st world family and a poor 3rd world one. The poor one is most of the time larger.
#3
-
dempersons (08/31/2015) [-]
The one on the right says "Let them eat cake", so shouldn't that one be the pro world hunger choice, and not the solution for it?
#41 to #12
-
dempersons (09/01/2015) [-]
The reference of let them eat cake goes back to the french revolution, when the queen was asked what solution there should be to feed all of the starving people who couldnt even get bread (most of the population) and because she didnt know that the cake had to come from somewhere, she said let them eat cake. So curing world hunger by saying let them eat cake is saying let them starve to death so there will be no more world hunger...
#70
-
rollingpicture (09/01/2015) [-] **rollingpicture used "*roll picture*"**
**rollingpicture rolled image**
Nobody deserves the fate of never tasting bacon. Its inhumane and wrong!
**rollingpicture rolled image**
Nobody deserves the fate of never tasting bacon. Its inhumane and wrong!
#61
-
wouldbang (09/01/2015) [-] **wouldbang used "*roll picture*"**
**wouldbang rolled image** Knowing Saints Rows they should have had a third option to do something stupid.
**wouldbang rolled image** Knowing Saints Rows they should have had a third option to do something stupid.
#29
-
oinos (09/01/2015) [-]
Burn both pieces of paper. It's cold in this bitch. Someone turn up the AC, this fire is a little too hot.
#26
-
mangostormlegend (08/31/2015) [-] Ultimately, I chose " **** cancer" just because it sounded cooler.
