*Face Palm
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
98 comments displayed.
#3
-
MrMustacho ONLINE (12/08/2015) [-] 1) they only raise one child at a time (if they have twins they leave one to die)
2) the mating times between males and females are out of sync (they almost never want to bang at the same time
3.1) their stomachs can't properly digest bamboo
3.2) they pretty much only eat bamboo (they have to eat nonstop)
4) they urinate standing on their heads (this cost a lot of energy that they don't have see 3)
just let them die, it's what god wants
2) the mating times between males and females are out of sync (they almost never want to bang at the same time
3.1) their stomachs can't properly digest bamboo
3.2) they pretty much only eat bamboo (they have to eat nonstop)
4) they urinate standing on their heads (this cost a lot of energy that they don't have see 3)
just let them die, it's what god wants
#42 to #9
-
toosexyforyou (12/08/2015) [-] When there's a 3.1 and 3.2, saying something like "See 3" means to look at both 3.1 and 3.2.
#46 to #42
-
frenzyhero (12/08/2015) [-] 3.1 and 3.2=/=3
if he meant 3 as two different notes, then he should have used 3A and 3B.
if he meant 3 as two different notes, then he should have used 3A and 3B.
#61 to #46
-
opticmonkey ONLINE (12/08/2015) [-] If you're gonna be a nitpicking faggot at least be right
#63 to #62
-
opticmonkey ONLINE (12/08/2015) [-] You're not tho, using decimals that way is common practice. Go to a wikipedia article and read the table of contents
#65 to #46
-
BloodyTurds (12/08/2015) [-]
In this case, the period, doesn't denote decimal but rather separation
It would have been better if he posted 3A/3B, or 3.A/3.B to avoid any potential confusion.. but it is still acceptable nonetheless
It would have been better if he posted 3A/3B, or 3.A/3.B to avoid any potential confusion.. but it is still acceptable nonetheless
#77 to #3
-
uzumakilover (12/08/2015) [-] You would leave a poor creature like that to die?! You are a horrible person!
Naruto-sama looks down on you filth, believe it!
Naruto-sama looks down on you filth, believe it!
#39 to #3
-
internetnick (12/08/2015) [-]
I'd agree that we should let them die, but they're so iconic and make so much money that keeping them alive isn't a waste of money, it's an investment.
#4 to #3
-
lostlust (12/08/2015) [-]
1) true, due to the panda mom would rather give all her milk to the strongest cub. In captivity, this can be easily overcome
2) this problem is only true for captive pandas and we still don't know why they lost the will to reproduce in captivity. In the wild they breed like any other bear and idiots keep thinking pandas can't reproduce based on retarded american documentaries.
3) their stomach evolved microbe environments like cows to digest plant matter specifically and while they still do have to eat a lot, evolution proves that bamboo is a viable and successful choice in food since the panda would not have evolved a panda thumb over the past millions of years if it was a **** source of food in the first place. The problem is now the loss of habitat
4) Pandas mark territory and dominance based on how high they can pee.
1/5 good try. if you want to blame the animals for humans mistakes, might as well just kill off all wildlife.
2) this problem is only true for captive pandas and we still don't know why they lost the will to reproduce in captivity. In the wild they breed like any other bear and idiots keep thinking pandas can't reproduce based on retarded american documentaries.
3) their stomach evolved microbe environments like cows to digest plant matter specifically and while they still do have to eat a lot, evolution proves that bamboo is a viable and successful choice in food since the panda would not have evolved a panda thumb over the past millions of years if it was a **** source of food in the first place. The problem is now the loss of habitat
4) Pandas mark territory and dominance based on how high they can pee.
1/5 good try. if you want to blame the animals for humans mistakes, might as well just kill off all wildlife.
#30 to #4
-
welodog ONLINE (12/08/2015) [-] 3/4 ,Didn't complete your own research on all. Rest is good, but not bamboo part.
mbio.asm.org/content/6/3/e00022-15.full
mbio.asm.org/content/6/3/e00022-15.full
#44 to #4
-
drtrousersnake ONLINE (12/08/2015) [-] So what you are saying is that mother nature might have WMDs and we need to liberate her?
#45 to #38
-
lordraine (12/08/2015) [-]
We call different species of monkey different subspecies for being less different than the differences between an Asian man and an African one.
The "all one species" is progressive ********* . It's politically correct 'science' that is not backed up by facts or taxonomic distinctions. In fact, the man behind the "Out of Africa" theory has since retracted his original theory, and replaced it with a new one that he believes more accurately represents the genetic realities of human. That theory separates us all into four distinct species of human. Do you think that got any media coverage? Of course not.
Want proof that you're being fed politically influenced facts instead of real science?
Consider dogs.
No dog trainer on the planet would ever tell you that every dog is as smart as every other dog. Some dogs are extremely intelligent. Others are as stupid as a sack of rocks. That's just the kind of dog they are. Sames species, but different breed. No one will ever try to argue that a golden retriever isn't smarter than a pug. It is a well established fact that this is true, and we know it to be true for dogs, horses, cats, parrots, pigs, monkeys, apes, and every other type of animal you care to name.
So why does science pretend that every single breed of human being is exactly the same? Why is the official scientific answer to, if I may reuse the example earlier, whether an Asian is smarter than an African, "of course not, don't be silly?" Asians test better on IQ scores and SATS than Africans do. Even Africans who are raised outside of Africa in first world nations with a good upbringing don't score on the same level. They don't do as well academically, nor do they manage as well financially or in terms of employment.
If it were any other species, we would say "obviously the Asian breed is smarter than the African one. It's simple." But because humans are involved, suddenly the issue of intelligence is a sacred thing that cannot be infringed or questioned.
Why?
Because it would be politically incorrect to do so. Because we have allowed progressives to change the definition of "racist" from "hating someone else based on their race" to "acknowledging that there are any differences in race whatsoever." Since no one wants to be racist, everyone now pretends that there are no differences, even when there clearly are.
I care about mine and my own. If another type of human couldn't hack it or compete, that's natural selection. Do you shed any tears for Neanderthals? No? Why? Because they are conveniently long dead, and thus do not tug on your heartstrings? Isn't that just admitting that you make decisions based on emotional appeals, and not logical ones? If the Black Lives Matter activists actually cared about black lives, why are they not protesting the rampant slavery that takes place in Africa?
At the end of the day, this isn't about racism or sexism or discrimination of any sort. This is about complacency and ignoring the truth that is right in front of you.
Answer me one last question. Let's put everything we've just set up aside for a moment, and assume that every single race is equal.
If they are, then why does Affirmative Action exist? It's not a radical idea to state that coddling a single person makes them less effective a person in the long run. It's a well known fact. So why is it suddenly okay if we do it to many people? What changes when it is done on a large scale? Why is that any different?
One more. Look at Africa today. There is no stable infrastructure, and society is imploding.
Do you know why there is no farming? Because we give them free food. Farmers can't compete with free.
Do you know why the population is out of control? Because we gave third world people first world meds.
Is Africa better off on international welfare, or would you agree that we should just leave them alone and let them sort it out?
Welfare is a poison. It is a compassion that kills both sides of the exchange for no gain.
The "all one species" is progressive ********* . It's politically correct 'science' that is not backed up by facts or taxonomic distinctions. In fact, the man behind the "Out of Africa" theory has since retracted his original theory, and replaced it with a new one that he believes more accurately represents the genetic realities of human. That theory separates us all into four distinct species of human. Do you think that got any media coverage? Of course not.
Want proof that you're being fed politically influenced facts instead of real science?
Consider dogs.
No dog trainer on the planet would ever tell you that every dog is as smart as every other dog. Some dogs are extremely intelligent. Others are as stupid as a sack of rocks. That's just the kind of dog they are. Sames species, but different breed. No one will ever try to argue that a golden retriever isn't smarter than a pug. It is a well established fact that this is true, and we know it to be true for dogs, horses, cats, parrots, pigs, monkeys, apes, and every other type of animal you care to name.
So why does science pretend that every single breed of human being is exactly the same? Why is the official scientific answer to, if I may reuse the example earlier, whether an Asian is smarter than an African, "of course not, don't be silly?" Asians test better on IQ scores and SATS than Africans do. Even Africans who are raised outside of Africa in first world nations with a good upbringing don't score on the same level. They don't do as well academically, nor do they manage as well financially or in terms of employment.
If it were any other species, we would say "obviously the Asian breed is smarter than the African one. It's simple." But because humans are involved, suddenly the issue of intelligence is a sacred thing that cannot be infringed or questioned.
Why?
Because it would be politically incorrect to do so. Because we have allowed progressives to change the definition of "racist" from "hating someone else based on their race" to "acknowledging that there are any differences in race whatsoever." Since no one wants to be racist, everyone now pretends that there are no differences, even when there clearly are.
I care about mine and my own. If another type of human couldn't hack it or compete, that's natural selection. Do you shed any tears for Neanderthals? No? Why? Because they are conveniently long dead, and thus do not tug on your heartstrings? Isn't that just admitting that you make decisions based on emotional appeals, and not logical ones? If the Black Lives Matter activists actually cared about black lives, why are they not protesting the rampant slavery that takes place in Africa?
At the end of the day, this isn't about racism or sexism or discrimination of any sort. This is about complacency and ignoring the truth that is right in front of you.
Answer me one last question. Let's put everything we've just set up aside for a moment, and assume that every single race is equal.
If they are, then why does Affirmative Action exist? It's not a radical idea to state that coddling a single person makes them less effective a person in the long run. It's a well known fact. So why is it suddenly okay if we do it to many people? What changes when it is done on a large scale? Why is that any different?
One more. Look at Africa today. There is no stable infrastructure, and society is imploding.
Do you know why there is no farming? Because we give them free food. Farmers can't compete with free.
Do you know why the population is out of control? Because we gave third world people first world meds.
Is Africa better off on international welfare, or would you agree that we should just leave them alone and let them sort it out?
Welfare is a poison. It is a compassion that kills both sides of the exchange for no gain.
#56 to #45
-
anon (12/08/2015) [-]
>not realizing all humans have some degree of neanderthal dna due to crossbreading
>still beleiving in a single measure of general intelligence
>Thinkinging SAT scores measure anything but education and discipline to adhere to said education
>Thinking there are controlled for subjects of different races with the same upbringing and same socioeconomic status, that are completely unnaffected by cultural concepts of race
Seriously on that last one though, people are proven to be more focused and meticulous when wearing a lab coat, its gotta be waay amplifyed for wearing different skin. Also the interhuman genetic differences are very low, I dont know where you get the different species idea, even dog 'breeds' have waaay more variation than human phenotypes. There can even be more of a difference between two white men than a white guy and a black guy.
>still beleiving in a single measure of general intelligence
>Thinkinging SAT scores measure anything but education and discipline to adhere to said education
>Thinking there are controlled for subjects of different races with the same upbringing and same socioeconomic status, that are completely unnaffected by cultural concepts of race
Seriously on that last one though, people are proven to be more focused and meticulous when wearing a lab coat, its gotta be waay amplifyed for wearing different skin. Also the interhuman genetic differences are very low, I dont know where you get the different species idea, even dog 'breeds' have waaay more variation than human phenotypes. There can even be more of a difference between two white men than a white guy and a black guy.
#78 to #45
-
deathweaver (12/08/2015) [-] >There is no stable infrastructure and society is imploding.
Fair observation. Though it's largely caused by the fact that Post-Imperialist Africa was thrown into the ******* by Europe, and geographic isolation makes it detrimental to make infrastructure and create a market, so really it's a bunch of countries trying to make do with what little resources they own and receive.
>No farming because we give them free food
Actually most African countries are agrarian based. And you overestimate the amount of food we give them. And whatever amount you do estimate is not enough for Africa to completely give up farming.
>Why is the population out of control? First world meds.
First world meds or nah, people like to **** , and people **** a lot. Even with diseases, communities with a food surplus will expand it's population.
>Welfare vs. Let them sort their own **** out
Why does it have to be absolutes? African societies receiving aid can greatly benefit and expand. Also Africa has oil, so we have economic interest in them.
Fair observation. Though it's largely caused by the fact that Post-Imperialist Africa was thrown into the ******* by Europe, and geographic isolation makes it detrimental to make infrastructure and create a market, so really it's a bunch of countries trying to make do with what little resources they own and receive.
>No farming because we give them free food
Actually most African countries are agrarian based. And you overestimate the amount of food we give them. And whatever amount you do estimate is not enough for Africa to completely give up farming.
>Why is the population out of control? First world meds.
First world meds or nah, people like to **** , and people **** a lot. Even with diseases, communities with a food surplus will expand it's population.
>Welfare vs. Let them sort their own **** out
Why does it have to be absolutes? African societies receiving aid can greatly benefit and expand. Also Africa has oil, so we have economic interest in them.
#48 to #45
-
mrfinnt (12/08/2015) [-] wow what a rant. anyway the topic of race difference in humans was not in my head as i read your first comment. wellfare also exist for homeless white people in european cuntrys. not just in africa
also Neanderthals are definatly not humans. next your question "Affirmative Action" exist because humans dont like to watch other humans starve in the streets.
and to the africa thing. yes your right selling cheap food in africa destroyd their local food industry. thus following unemployment and sozial instability. warlords rise in power and think themself 'hey that diamond mine is now mine i need money.'
thats crates more conflics and thats leads into a spiral of war. (I blame capitalism)
that could have happend everywhere on the planet, infact. look at mexico, warlords or mafiaboss fight for power in the cuntrybecause the goverment is weak and there is money to make.
dont tell me mexicans are not white people, they are basicly spains and spain is next to france. speaking of spain, also poor but thanks to wellfare of the EU its not a ******** like other places. i could go on.
also Neanderthals are definatly not humans. next your question "Affirmative Action" exist because humans dont like to watch other humans starve in the streets.
and to the africa thing. yes your right selling cheap food in africa destroyd their local food industry. thus following unemployment and sozial instability. warlords rise in power and think themself 'hey that diamond mine is now mine i need money.'
thats crates more conflics and thats leads into a spiral of war. (I blame capitalism)
that could have happend everywhere on the planet, infact. look at mexico, warlords or mafiaboss fight for power in the cuntrybecause the goverment is weak and there is money to make.
dont tell me mexicans are not white people, they are basicly spains and spain is next to france. speaking of spain, also poor but thanks to wellfare of the EU its not a ******** like other places. i could go on.
#52 to #48
-
anon (12/08/2015) [-]
Mexico's government is incredibly strong, the fact that you think it's in any way "Weak" just shows that you are too ignorant to contribute any thing to the conversation as far as political policy goes. Africa's problem isn't capitalism, there is and has never been a capitalist society in Africa. For capitalism to exists there area few things that need to happen before hand. First the Civil Society must exist, this means adherence to the rule of law, a free, thinking people and so on, It's much more but I'm not getting into it. Two, there must be some form or representative, non intrusive government. A government that won't intrude on the peoples lives and dictate what they can and cannot do, produce, or say.
When as Africa had any of this? When has Africa ever had any thing close to the Civil Society or any capitalist system? I'll save you time and tell you the answer is never. Just because a capitalist society likes diamonds from a land of backwards thinking ape people doesn't mean it's their fault they're all killing each other.
When as Africa had any of this? When has Africa ever had any thing close to the Civil Society or any capitalist system? I'll save you time and tell you the answer is never. Just because a capitalist society likes diamonds from a land of backwards thinking ape people doesn't mean it's their fault they're all killing each other.
#22 to #16
-
slapchoppin (12/08/2015) [-] mosquitoes are very useful
the spread malaria to all the africans
the spread malaria to all the africans
#64 to #35
-
velociraptorein (12/08/2015) [-] Some areas of research suggest total eradication of Mosquitoes would actually not be harmful in the slightest. www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html
#41 to #24
-
heartlessrobot (12/08/2015) [-] Yeah but if they all disappeared, animals would just eat other bugs.
#59 to #15
-
ImmortalBaconEater (12/08/2015) [-] Panda express would become the most depressing restaurant.
#21 to #15
-
drpenguinz (12/08/2015) [-] the world would be a miserable place
all that uneaten bamboo would infinitely grow and finally subjugate all of humanity
all that uneaten bamboo would infinitely grow and finally subjugate all of humanity
#19 to #15
-
trollmobile ONLINE (12/08/2015) [-] we wouldn't get videos like this one.
they're pretty irrelevant in nature.
but adorably clumsy.
they're pretty irrelevant in nature.
but adorably clumsy.
#14
-
donfailed ONLINE (12/08/2015) [-]
Pandas are the autistic children of the animal kingdom. 9 times out of 10 they can't survive on their own, there's large organizations out there just to support them, and saying anything negative about them is socially unacceptable.
#28 to #14
-
mrshrapnel (12/08/2015) [-] Zookeeper here, i say preserve animals all damm day but i will shut right the hell up at the mention of panda bears, just **** em.
They have the biological fitness of a moldy cucumber and even that is generous.
They have the biological fitness of a moldy cucumber and even that is generous.
#72
-
doctorprofessornv (12/08/2015) [-] Man, have any of you even heard of the concept of an umbrella species?
Sure, Pandas are useless as hell, I'll give you that. But the habitats they inhabit are far from useless, and worthy of protection. The problem is that nobody gives a **** about the real important organisms in the ecosystem, i.e all the creepy-crawlies and reptiles and amphibians and other tiny little things that really keep everything moving. But people will pay out the nose to protect the Panda (or any large/iconic mammal), because it is cute and fluffy, and the average citizen readily identifies with cute, fluffy things. So we protect the Panda not because the Panda is in any way necessary, but because in doing so we can protect everything else that lives in the same habitat.
Sure, Pandas are useless as hell, I'll give you that. But the habitats they inhabit are far from useless, and worthy of protection. The problem is that nobody gives a **** about the real important organisms in the ecosystem, i.e all the creepy-crawlies and reptiles and amphibians and other tiny little things that really keep everything moving. But people will pay out the nose to protect the Panda (or any large/iconic mammal), because it is cute and fluffy, and the average citizen readily identifies with cute, fluffy things. So we protect the Panda not because the Panda is in any way necessary, but because in doing so we can protect everything else that lives in the same habitat.
#75 to #73
-
doctorprofessornv (12/08/2015) [-] No that's humans. There are nowhere near enough Pandas to make a sizable dent in bamboo forests by themselves, especially since they are endangered.
#76
-
enlightenedatheist (12/08/2015) [-]
Pandas should just ******* die already. Humans have asserted their dominance onto foreign land by endangering the creature there and some pussy hippies are trying to bring them back??? **** you, humans are apex predators and we should not be having concerns for lesser beings. Animals cannot feel pain and if they did, who ******* cares? They do not bring good to this world. We should just stop giving a **** . It has even been proven on multiple ******* occasions that we can live without them. So why do we even bother?
#85 to #84
-
enlightenedatheist (12/08/2015) [-]
So? There was still my ******* reasoning.
Humans should not ******* bother with pandas.
Humans should not ******* bother with any animals in general.
Who ******* cares what happens to the ecosystem? What the **** will happen? Will the ******* world explode or something?
And don't you ******* call me edgy, by the definition of the word, you would be ******* edgy too.
Humans should not ******* bother with pandas.
Humans should not ******* bother with any animals in general.
Who ******* cares what happens to the ecosystem? What the **** will happen? Will the ******* world explode or something?
And don't you ******* call me edgy, by the definition of the word, you would be ******* edgy too.
