x
Click to expand

bobbysnobby

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/20/2010
Last Login:5/04/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#3304
Highest Content Rank:#25533
Highest Comment Rank:#1679
Content Thumbs: 16 total,  21 ,  5
Comment Thumbs: 5690 total,  6970 ,  1280
Content Level Progress: 33.89% (20/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 51% (51/100)
Level 247 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 248 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:0
Content Views:5033
Total Comments Made:1219
FJ Points:4749

latest user's comments

#6 - This is the only thing that came to mind given that image. 12/14/2014 on You can't say no 0
#66 - Its actually getting rather amusing now. What i mean… 12/11/2014 on It's not all 'MURICA 0
#58 - I'm not a liberal. And your comments are starting to…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/11/2014 on It's not all 'MURICA 0
#64 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
No. There will be no push back. Try as they may, the second amendment is pretty specific. If they couldn't pass any restrictions after Sandy Hook, they can't pass any at all. That's when public opinion was at it's peak against guns. Nothing will change. Nothing.

Not even your imagined "gun culture" can change that. I don't think you even know what you mean by that. So far, it still seems that you mean black rifles with accessories that are scawwwyyy and that you think the people who own them are crazy because they don't need them. F*ck off, faggot,

And, it's not bait. It's true. Either you can defend yourself and your family, or you need another man to do it for you. Again, you must have no self respect since you basically admit you're too scared and weak to provide for your own protection. Yes, you're a liberal. Living of the abilities of other capable men. Yeah. You're a liberal pussy. You are the definition of a liberal pussy. I bet you sit to pee.
#66 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
Its actually getting rather amusing now.

What i mean by gun culture is the attempts to work around laws, for example the restriction of fire rates. The law is about the mechanism, the industry pushed for the bump stock which was directly an attempt to work around the law while ignoring the purpose of the law. The law was to restrict firerate of civilian weapons not to make illegal a specific mechanism which allowed for rates of fire above a threshold.

I have nothing against gun ownership as you seem to suggest repeatedly. Im for the second.
#52 - I believe the argument is that having guns is not so much a pr…  [+] (5 new replies) 12/11/2014 on It's not all 'MURICA +1
#56 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
Does this take into consideration gang fights involving two gangs who both have guns? If it does then the average person is mostly unaffected.
#55 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
I don't understand how any man can be a liberal. Damn, you sound like a pussy. You are afraid of a mythical gun culture, black rifles with scary accessories, and imagined hill-billy gun owners looking for a fight.

F*ck. You're even so cliche that you concern yourself with the reason people own guns. How about because I can? How about that? I own just to exercise my rights and so urban-liberal-beta-male faggots check for me under their bed at night like some sort of patriot boogeyman. I'll own guns just because it bothers people like you.

Interestingly, if there's ever trouble, weak men like you look to the strong men such as my self to save you. Have you no self respect? Faggot, faggot, faggot.
#58 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
I'm not a liberal.

And your comments are starting to read like an example of Poe's law. "if there's ever trouble, weak men like you look to the strong men such as my self to save you." This is b8 if i ever saw it.

My point about gun culture, is that if there is ever a group which will hurt gun rights going forward it is gun culture. The shit they try to get away with will earn pushback.
#64 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
No. There will be no push back. Try as they may, the second amendment is pretty specific. If they couldn't pass any restrictions after Sandy Hook, they can't pass any at all. That's when public opinion was at it's peak against guns. Nothing will change. Nothing.

Not even your imagined "gun culture" can change that. I don't think you even know what you mean by that. So far, it still seems that you mean black rifles with accessories that are scawwwyyy and that you think the people who own them are crazy because they don't need them. F*ck off, faggot,

And, it's not bait. It's true. Either you can defend yourself and your family, or you need another man to do it for you. Again, you must have no self respect since you basically admit you're too scared and weak to provide for your own protection. Yes, you're a liberal. Living of the abilities of other capable men. Yeah. You're a liberal pussy. You are the definition of a liberal pussy. I bet you sit to pee.
#66 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
Its actually getting rather amusing now.

What i mean by gun culture is the attempts to work around laws, for example the restriction of fire rates. The law is about the mechanism, the industry pushed for the bump stock which was directly an attempt to work around the law while ignoring the purpose of the law. The law was to restrict firerate of civilian weapons not to make illegal a specific mechanism which allowed for rates of fire above a threshold.

I have nothing against gun ownership as you seem to suggest repeatedly. Im for the second.
#41 - More than 4 times more likely to be shot in assault, not owner…  [+] (8 new replies) 12/11/2014 on It's not all 'MURICA -1
#45 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
Fine. I'll concede the point for the sake of argument. Okay, let's say you're right. So? What's your point? How does this one statistic prove that gun owners are not responsible?

It seems as though you found ONE piece of evidence that fits your narrative, and you are using it to generalize all gun owners--all other facts be damned!
#52 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
I believe the argument is that having guns is not so much a protection as people who own guns and are willing to use them take bigger risks. So far as i see it it's the only way you can explain that data unless gun owners all have some other attribute they as a group all share.

My narrative is that gun culture is scary which is subjective. The other position is that gun owners as a group are no more or less responsible than non gun owners which is a subjective concept "responsible" but that there are studies which show gun owners as a group put them selves at risk more than non gun owners.
#56 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
Does this take into consideration gang fights involving two gangs who both have guns? If it does then the average person is mostly unaffected.
#55 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
I don't understand how any man can be a liberal. Damn, you sound like a pussy. You are afraid of a mythical gun culture, black rifles with scary accessories, and imagined hill-billy gun owners looking for a fight.

F*ck. You're even so cliche that you concern yourself with the reason people own guns. How about because I can? How about that? I own just to exercise my rights and so urban-liberal-beta-male faggots check for me under their bed at night like some sort of patriot boogeyman. I'll own guns just because it bothers people like you.

Interestingly, if there's ever trouble, weak men like you look to the strong men such as my self to save you. Have you no self respect? Faggot, faggot, faggot.
#58 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
I'm not a liberal.

And your comments are starting to read like an example of Poe's law. "if there's ever trouble, weak men like you look to the strong men such as my self to save you." This is b8 if i ever saw it.

My point about gun culture, is that if there is ever a group which will hurt gun rights going forward it is gun culture. The shit they try to get away with will earn pushback.
#64 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
No. There will be no push back. Try as they may, the second amendment is pretty specific. If they couldn't pass any restrictions after Sandy Hook, they can't pass any at all. That's when public opinion was at it's peak against guns. Nothing will change. Nothing.

Not even your imagined "gun culture" can change that. I don't think you even know what you mean by that. So far, it still seems that you mean black rifles with accessories that are scawwwyyy and that you think the people who own them are crazy because they don't need them. F*ck off, faggot,

And, it's not bait. It's true. Either you can defend yourself and your family, or you need another man to do it for you. Again, you must have no self respect since you basically admit you're too scared and weak to provide for your own protection. Yes, you're a liberal. Living of the abilities of other capable men. Yeah. You're a liberal pussy. You are the definition of a liberal pussy. I bet you sit to pee.
#66 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
Its actually getting rather amusing now.

What i mean by gun culture is the attempts to work around laws, for example the restriction of fire rates. The law is about the mechanism, the industry pushed for the bump stock which was directly an attempt to work around the law while ignoring the purpose of the law. The law was to restrict firerate of civilian weapons not to make illegal a specific mechanism which allowed for rates of fire above a threshold.

I have nothing against gun ownership as you seem to suggest repeatedly. Im for the second.
User avatar #42 - drldrl (12/11/2014) [-]
Well then actually say what you mean instead of generalized statements.

Also, Branas is a doctor. Don't think he's qualified to be examining this.
#34 - This **** isnt unpopular, Ill give you unpopular. …  [+] (20 new replies) 12/11/2014 on It's not all 'MURICA -8
#117 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
It is funny that you are proving that his opinion is in fact the unpopular one, and the one OP posted is pretty standard (for the US atleast).
Also have you guys ever stopped to think that maybe you are more likely to get hurt when robbed in the US, because the criminal is afraid you might be able to fire back. In my country there are only 1-2 people dying from guns every year. And I like to attribute that to the fact that guns are illegal.
User avatar #94 - fitchy (12/11/2014) [-]
most gun culture is about the fact that guns are fuckin cool. No, not in the sense that "HURGADUUURH EXPLOSIONS!!" but in a mechanical, historical, and skill sense. Firearms can be collectibles, a hobby, a means of putting food on the table. The fact that you even think about empowerment makes you a fucking twat. The whole reason the human race is a thing is because we seek to become better at everything we do. Hunters began throwing rocks, then they tied the rocks to shit to make spears and arrows, then they made better ones etc...
Also, the fact that civilian firearms resemble military firearms IS BECAUSE THAT'S HOW A GUN HAS TO FUCKING LOOK!
An AR or an AK platform firearm has to fucking look like that to function. The fact that they can be modular and have attachments or larger capacity magazines is the only think you could even think about being uncomfortable about. What do you want them to do, make a fuckin neon orange AR, with no barrel cover or heat guard?
And gun owners are less likely to be injured with a firearm if anything, i someone points a gun at you, and you have one to, you better believe you have a better chance of not getting shot than the fucker without a gun. That statistic comes from negligence of retards who somehow get a gun illegally that is factored in.
I swear to god if you live in california...
#74 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
cutting my finger on an edge while i'm cleaning my gun technically counts as an injury attained from a firearm
User avatar #37 - drldrl (12/11/2014) [-]
"gun owners are more than twice as likely to be injured by a firearm than non owners"
No shit, numbnuts. That's basic logic. I could say cat owners are more likely to be killed by cats than non owners, and it's 100% true. They have more exposure to it.
#88 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
A cat has it's own agency. A gun doesn't.
User avatar #86 - theruinedsage (12/11/2014) [-]
Driving a car also increases your chances of being in a car accident. Which is something you have to accept if you want a personal vehicle for transportation

But getting a car to decrease the chance of dying in a car accident, because it makes it harder for people to run you over, is moronic.
User avatar #71 - captainprincess (12/11/2014) [-]
Uh
No it isn't

Cats don't really... kill people
User avatar #171 - skubasteve (12/11/2014) [-]
Cats? No. The diseases they carry? Absolutely.
User avatar #178 - captainprincess (12/11/2014) [-]
Well sure if you let them run rampant like any other wild animal
keep them groomed and looked after and medically clean, you'll be fine too
#41 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
More than 4 times more likely to be shot in assault, not owner accident. Numbnuts.

Branas, Charles C., et al. "Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault." American journal of public health 99.11 (2009): 2034.
#45 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
Fine. I'll concede the point for the sake of argument. Okay, let's say you're right. So? What's your point? How does this one statistic prove that gun owners are not responsible?

It seems as though you found ONE piece of evidence that fits your narrative, and you are using it to generalize all gun owners--all other facts be damned!
#52 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
I believe the argument is that having guns is not so much a protection as people who own guns and are willing to use them take bigger risks. So far as i see it it's the only way you can explain that data unless gun owners all have some other attribute they as a group all share.

My narrative is that gun culture is scary which is subjective. The other position is that gun owners as a group are no more or less responsible than non gun owners which is a subjective concept "responsible" but that there are studies which show gun owners as a group put them selves at risk more than non gun owners.
#56 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
Does this take into consideration gang fights involving two gangs who both have guns? If it does then the average person is mostly unaffected.
#55 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
I don't understand how any man can be a liberal. Damn, you sound like a pussy. You are afraid of a mythical gun culture, black rifles with scary accessories, and imagined hill-billy gun owners looking for a fight.

F*ck. You're even so cliche that you concern yourself with the reason people own guns. How about because I can? How about that? I own just to exercise my rights and so urban-liberal-beta-male faggots check for me under their bed at night like some sort of patriot boogeyman. I'll own guns just because it bothers people like you.

Interestingly, if there's ever trouble, weak men like you look to the strong men such as my self to save you. Have you no self respect? Faggot, faggot, faggot.
#58 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
I'm not a liberal.

And your comments are starting to read like an example of Poe's law. "if there's ever trouble, weak men like you look to the strong men such as my self to save you." This is b8 if i ever saw it.

My point about gun culture, is that if there is ever a group which will hurt gun rights going forward it is gun culture. The shit they try to get away with will earn pushback.
#64 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
No. There will be no push back. Try as they may, the second amendment is pretty specific. If they couldn't pass any restrictions after Sandy Hook, they can't pass any at all. That's when public opinion was at it's peak against guns. Nothing will change. Nothing.

Not even your imagined "gun culture" can change that. I don't think you even know what you mean by that. So far, it still seems that you mean black rifles with accessories that are scawwwyyy and that you think the people who own them are crazy because they don't need them. F*ck off, faggot,

And, it's not bait. It's true. Either you can defend yourself and your family, or you need another man to do it for you. Again, you must have no self respect since you basically admit you're too scared and weak to provide for your own protection. Yes, you're a liberal. Living of the abilities of other capable men. Yeah. You're a liberal pussy. You are the definition of a liberal pussy. I bet you sit to pee.
#66 - bobbysnobby (12/11/2014) [-]
Its actually getting rather amusing now.

What i mean by gun culture is the attempts to work around laws, for example the restriction of fire rates. The law is about the mechanism, the industry pushed for the bump stock which was directly an attempt to work around the law while ignoring the purpose of the law. The law was to restrict firerate of civilian weapons not to make illegal a specific mechanism which allowed for rates of fire above a threshold.

I have nothing against gun ownership as you seem to suggest repeatedly. Im for the second.
User avatar #42 - drldrl (12/11/2014) [-]
Well then actually say what you mean instead of generalized statements.

Also, Branas is a doctor. Don't think he's qualified to be examining this.
#39 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
LOL! I was going to say something similar, but then I thought the point bobbysnobby made was so stupid that it didn't really deserve a response. I mean, this guy's already a little slow. So, I went a little easy on him.
#36 - Ken M (12/11/2014) [-]
Bullsh*t. Automatic weapons have been outlawed except for a very few cases since 1934. There's no way to skirt that law--spirit or otherwise. You are one of those typical liberals that are just scared of guns and the "gun culture" (LOL!) because you know nothing about it. You see a laser sight and a collapsible stock on a black riffle and you reflexively clutch your pearls. "It's...like...all black and stuff. Why do they have to skirt laws to get these scawwwyyy weapons of mass destruction into the hands of toddlers? Why do they even need that? Damn you NRA!" My rights aren't up for debate. F*ck off.
#41 - Blue screen is a generic error its not exclusive to "micr…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/10/2014 on Blue Screen of Death 0
User avatar #52 - lovot (12/10/2014) [-]
I said not to even bother with Apple either, but Windows is known to be more likely to crash than Apple. Linux has it's own issues, but it's more likely to warn you about failing hardware, and it can be made extremely stable to the point that the only way to crash it is to damage the RAM or CPU, or run a program with severe memory leaks, which can crash practically anything.
#60 - Did someone say pancakes?  [+] (3 new replies) 12/10/2014 on Tucker and Dale vs Pancakes +1
User avatar #63 - sirnigga (12/10/2014) [-]
is that hatty hattington?
#65 - aangbingo (12/10/2014) [-]
Yes, Stamper voiced Hatty.
#71 - bendingtimeisgood (12/10/2014) [-]
Stamper master race.
#20 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 12/09/2014 on Being a man +2
User avatar #23 - iridium (12/09/2014) [-]
64695 listens.

At 217 seconds a listen, that means he has spent at least 162 and a half days of listening to that song.

Jesus fucking christ.
#58 - Its nearly like sitcoms need to have dynamic differences betwe… 12/09/2014 on The smart the weird and the... 0
#51 - I checked there is no thumb up from god. 12/09/2014 on Thanks Satan. +1
#110 - The protagonist (PC) in Demon Souls would be Chaotic neutral. … 12/09/2014 on What is D&D? Alignment 0
#40 - There are a bunch of half nuts 2 on the top 1 on the bottom an… 12/08/2014 on Does It Hurt? 0
#96 - Science in general and Anthropology in particular are agnostic… 12/07/2014 on Has science gone too far? 0
#56 - Mars is smooth because it doesnt have very much volcanic activ…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/07/2014 on Has science gone too far? +1
#62 - Ken M (12/07/2014) [-]
explain the missing link to me then, and lucy not the movie , or explain your theory of god. that anon is just going off of a youtube vid that makes as much sense as most religions (not a whole lot of sense). it talks about humans becoming massive in size based off of their connections with themselves and the UNIVERSE. So like our big old Egyptian statues are of actual size, and that finger would supposedly come from one of those people, i guess.
#96 - bobbysnobby (12/07/2014) [-]
Science in general and Anthropology in particular are agnostic. Agnostic is a statement of knowledge rather than belief, agnostic means you think the question "Does God(s) exist?" is a question which is impossible to answer. Its not the job of science to say if there is or is not a God our job is to describe the world. Personally I dont see how Evolution is not a perfectly valid method of Creation.

"Missing links" Are what we call "transitional fossils" That is they show us predicted stages between two forms. Lucy its very interesting because her brain size is very low but her feet, pelvis, and most importantly her knee suggest she walked on two feet. There was debate in Anthropology about which came first large brain size or bipedality, Lucy seemed to suggest Brain Size came second.

Anthropologists dont like the term "missing link" because it implies that there was nothing until those fossils existed. Typically they are predicted which is how they are found at all. The other issue is that people always demand a missing link between x-y specimen. The best illustration of evolution for myself is the fallowing:

Imagine that throughout your life there are photos taken of you and then hidden through the world. We need to recreate your life off these photos. We find one of you as a child and one as a old man and predict that between them we should find you with xyz traits as a young man. We find a picture of you in your 40s, then predict and find one in your 20s, then your 30s. At every stage there can be demands to show the exact moment you say hit puberty, or the exact moment you became a young man. Its hard to do because its not stages its all one process. The best we try to do is find those snapshots as an example of those stages.

Yes there is some creationism arguments about radiation killing us off younger than ancient peoples who lived to be like 700 or something its just not possible its not how our bodies or the sun really works.
#55 - Its interesting actually bipedality is actually two form. Our … 12/07/2014 on Has science gone too far? +2
#48 - Heard ping from another window Rapid reply. That is t…  [+] (2 new replies) 12/07/2014 on Has science gone too far? +12
User avatar #99 - infinitereaper (12/07/2014) [-]
maybe it wasn't human
#72 - venomthc (12/07/2014) [-]
Main factor in Egypt, the master race was that they didn't lift. BOOM BURN YA PHARAON SKINNY BITCH ASS!
#19 - I study biological Anthropology here at the school of human ev…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/07/2014 on Has science gone too far? +2
#76 - Ken M (12/07/2014) [-]
Who the hell would think modern people are healthier?
We play video games and have pizza delivered to our door
lel
#7 - annnnddddd its ******** . our bodies are ****** …  [+] (19 new replies) 12/07/2014 on Has science gone too far? +75
User avatar #95 - frizzyo (12/07/2014) [-]
Unless atmospheric pressure was higher at some point. Extremely unlikely, but a variable nonetheless.
User avatar #88 - pronphisherman (12/07/2014) [-]
It's a result of what's called the square cube law basically when you scale something up its surface area increases at the rate of expansion squared where as the volume(mass) goes up at the rate of expansion cubed.
User avatar #69 - angelious (12/07/2014) [-]
who knows. there have been some weird shit in the history of everything.

and maybe this thing wasnt a human but rather a close relative of ours. like really close.


dunno if the finger has really been found and has not been proven a hoax then there has to be some sort of explination for it...tho that being said. op has provided no citation for this claim.
#46 - Ken M (12/07/2014) [-]
what if it was the last remains of an astronaut from mars, the one who seeded earth with the first humans...and since mars is smaller than earth maybe martians were much taller before their planet got hit by a massive asteroid, so big it caused half the planet to go molten and smoothed it out
#56 - bobbysnobby (12/07/2014) [-]
Mars is smooth because it doesnt have very much volcanic activity its ground is very old.
The earth was hit by a massive asteroid I dont think Mars was.
The post says ancient Egypt as in political Egypt, my cultural anthro and world history is shotty but i think the oldest we put Egypt as a country was like 12-17kya 10-15 bce? We have human remains significantly older than that.
Lower gravity would be less weight on the body so if you could live on mars it would be reasonable to say you could grow taller.

There is a lot of stuff which reads as a troll and some stuff which science does talk about so i answered but still feels like b8.

Planet seeding is a line of scientific research though not for macro forms of life like an "astronaut" but microbial that could survive entry through the atmosphere in an asteroid. Its an interesting line of inquiry which has lead to the ID of some new extremophiles which is cool.
#62 - Ken M (12/07/2014) [-]
explain the missing link to me then, and lucy not the movie , or explain your theory of god. that anon is just going off of a youtube vid that makes as much sense as most religions (not a whole lot of sense). it talks about humans becoming massive in size based off of their connections with themselves and the UNIVERSE. So like our big old Egyptian statues are of actual size, and that finger would supposedly come from one of those people, i guess.
#96 - bobbysnobby (12/07/2014) [-]
Science in general and Anthropology in particular are agnostic. Agnostic is a statement of knowledge rather than belief, agnostic means you think the question "Does God(s) exist?" is a question which is impossible to answer. Its not the job of science to say if there is or is not a God our job is to describe the world. Personally I dont see how Evolution is not a perfectly valid method of Creation.

"Missing links" Are what we call "transitional fossils" That is they show us predicted stages between two forms. Lucy its very interesting because her brain size is very low but her feet, pelvis, and most importantly her knee suggest she walked on two feet. There was debate in Anthropology about which came first large brain size or bipedality, Lucy seemed to suggest Brain Size came second.

Anthropologists dont like the term "missing link" because it implies that there was nothing until those fossils existed. Typically they are predicted which is how they are found at all. The other issue is that people always demand a missing link between x-y specimen. The best illustration of evolution for myself is the fallowing:

Imagine that throughout your life there are photos taken of you and then hidden through the world. We need to recreate your life off these photos. We find one of you as a child and one as a old man and predict that between them we should find you with xyz traits as a young man. We find a picture of you in your 40s, then predict and find one in your 20s, then your 30s. At every stage there can be demands to show the exact moment you say hit puberty, or the exact moment you became a young man. Its hard to do because its not stages its all one process. The best we try to do is find those snapshots as an example of those stages.

Yes there is some creationism arguments about radiation killing us off younger than ancient peoples who lived to be like 700 or something its just not possible its not how our bodies or the sun really works.
User avatar #21 - galaxyguy (12/07/2014) [-]
"[...] Human beings really cant live very well at above 9 feet [...]"

Well, he's clearly dead. bobbysnobby 0, giant mummy 1.
#87 - Ken M (12/07/2014) [-]
Why are you the Stronghold bookholder?
#92 - Ken M (12/07/2014) [-]
Because bitches love it when granary stocks are growing.
User avatar #17 - tacolishous (12/07/2014) [-]
Also, considering a guy only 9 feet tall died of heart failure makes me kinda skeptical of someone being 16 feet tall. But who knows? Maybe it was Sasquatch.
User avatar #16 - hellspawner (12/07/2014) [-]
OP is implying aliens.
User avatar #8 - kyleassante (12/07/2014) [-]
I would believe this because it seems like facts, but I love things that go above limitations. So in my mind I will continue to believe things that are out of the ordinary because it's fun for me. never know, at one point everything was deemed impossible, eventually it can become commonplace
#31 - Ken M (12/07/2014) [-]
The thing about human physical limitations is that we're so accustomed to them we are incapable of usually spotting them. Like walking, we are not great at bipedal walking. You know who was? Our ancestors with smaller brains. Smaller brains means smaller heads means less space required in the hips to successfully give birth. Modern humans have heads that would be fatal for our ancestors to have given birth to, however as it turns out developing a better brain makes you more likely to survive (better does not always imply larger but that's a climate and energy issue) in a hostile area, leading to the development of wider hips and a much larger pelvis. The trade off is that humans can not walk using completely straight motions, you have to sort of swing your leg (maybe a little, maybe a lot, looking at you whales) or otherwise tilt your hips, causing less efficient running and walking.
#52 - popeflatus (12/07/2014) [-]
Bipedal walking is actually a very efficient form of locomotion.
#98 - Ken M (12/07/2014) [-]
He said nothing about the efficiency of walking on two legs...he did say that we as a race are less efficient now than at previous points in time. Two entirely different things mate.
#55 - bobbysnobby (12/07/2014) [-]
Its interesting actually bipedality is actually two form. Our walking is somewhat eficent but actually its our long distance running which is really remarkable. If you think about it it makes sense which is for a quadruped they always have two legs on the ground, they have a very high level of balance and not much wasted energy in maintaining balance. However its not nearly as efficient when they run. Human beings use a ton of energy when they walk in maintaining balance if you see muscles on the human leg some of the biggest are what we call stabilizing muscles they dont perform anything for locomotion but they stabilize the leg and knee, this cost is reduced when your running extensive distances as per given weight we have much more range in our stride than other animals.

What human beings are the best in the world at in terms of locomotion in mammals is long distance running. We can run for an insane period of time if a dog tired to run the way we can they would quite literally die and dogs are one of the best long distance runners of all mammals.

Its one of the debates in anthropology how bipedality evolved because its not super efficent when just walking, even less so when you look at more imperfect or "transitional" forms of bipedalism. The leading hypothosis is about us being whats called Persistence hunting. That is our method of hunting would have been to literally run our prey into the ground chasing them for hours and hours till they collapsed from exhaustion. Its a practice which is still done in a few parts of the world and its terrifying to think of it from the point of view of the animal.

So in short your right, and wrong. Our walking is efficient but not very, our running is extremely efficient when the distance is long. There is a lot of debate in the field about what is called the biological economic argument for bipedality Energy efficiency doesnt seem to be the primary reason for people using bipedial locomotion strategies its still debated
#19 - bobbysnobby (12/07/2014) [-]
I study biological Anthropology here at the school of human evolution at ASU. Its talked about a lot human growth rate and development.

The Major issue with growing people is that we stand on two feet, and not every well at it., this causes a ton of pressure in two places, our pelvis and our knees. Thats a lot of load on those two spots and they are not great when you increase weight.

There are lots of cool miss conceptions about health and fitness which are cool if you want to look into it. For example its widely believed that the people who were in the best shape in history are not modern people but actually Greek war rowers. Like the oarsmen on a warship, the amount of manual work for the hours we have records on are insane.

There are some really cool feats of humans and their bodies throughout history 16 foot tall giants unfortunately isnt one of them.
#76 - Ken M (12/07/2014) [-]
Who the hell would think modern people are healthier?
We play video games and have pizza delivered to our door
lel
#14 - every time i see that image i think of the "your movie su… 12/07/2014 on Australia 0
#15 - Comment deleted  [+] (1 new reply) 12/07/2014 on I Am Bread +2
#22 - egosumproxi Comment deleted by bobbysnobby
#250 - Hue i7 12/06/2014 on This is Cum 0
#51 - The girls are way more cut throat than the guys. Jesus Katie, …  [+] (1 new reply) 12/05/2014 on oh snap +1
User avatar #93 - ljxjlos (12/05/2014) [-]
I dunno, "pls go away u arent cute" is pretty damn harsh. Gasper seems like a straight up killer to me.
#29 - Picture 12/05/2014 on Star Wars 0
#23 - Its not oc though. You didnt make it its all over the internet. 12/04/2014 on sasuke sama +2

items

Total unique items point value: 160 / Total items point value: 1820

Comments(0):

 
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)