lean
Rank #30 on Comments
Level 362 Comments: FJ Noble Offline
Send mail to lean Block lean Invite lean to be your friend flag avatar
| Last status update: | -
|
| | |
| Personal Info | |
| Date Signed Up: | 7/21/2011 |
| Last Login: | 1/12/2016 |
| FunnyJunk Career Stats | |
| Comment Ranking: | #30 |
| Highest Content Rank: | #1351 |
| Highest Comment Rank: | #22 |
| Content Thumbs: | 1872 total,
2082 ,
210 |
| Comment Thumbs: | 86665 total,
93569 ,
6904 |
| Content Level Progress: | 35% (35/100) Level 115 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie |
| Comment Level Progress: | 91.2% (912/1000) Level 362 Comments: FJ Noble → Level 363 Comments: FJ Noble |
| Subscribers: | 5 |
| Content Views: | 102813 |
| Times Content Favorited: | 112 times |
| Total Comments Made: | 6542 |
| FJ Points: | 63465 |
| Favorite Tags: | Space (2) |
latest user's comments
| #17 - Comment deleted [+] (19 new replies) | 01/06/2016 on (untitled) | 0 |
| #49 -
ninjahswagg Comment deleted by lean | ||
| #14 - Comment deleted [+] (27 new replies) | 01/06/2016 on (untitled) | -2 |
| #49 -
ninjahswagg Comment deleted by lean | ||
| #8 - Also there are only roughly 30 million cattle slaughtered year… | 01/06/2016 on Meat | 0 |
| #7 - Ah yes because each cow can only feed on one spot once and it … [+] (7 new replies) | 01/06/2016 on Meat | +5 |
 Oh dear, my apologies, the concern I'm stressing is the lack of sustainability that comes with the rapid growth of animal agriculture. The 7 to 1 ration is hardly a concern of mine, forgive me for digressing. 2,500 gallons of water are required to produce one pound of beef, 1,000 gallons of water for ONE gallon of milk, 900 gallons for a pound of cheese 477 for a pound of eggs. And unfortunately, yes, desertification is what that is known as (in regards to your first sentence) 1/3 of the planet's surface in now deemed unfit for cultivation as opposed to what it once was, hence excluding the Sahara desert for example, because of, but not limited to (it's a big planet) animal agriculture. And please, I hope you do not try to dismiss this at the very least, as worldwide cows alone drink 45 billion gallons of water and eat 135 billion pounds of food each day. (Based on a rough average of 30 gallons of water and 90 lbs of feed per day for each of 1.5 billion cows.) Do you not think we could put that to better use for those people that are without food and or water? #20 -
randomuploads (01/07/2016) [-] It's not about money. It's about energy-consumption and the state we leave the planet in once we die. I'm not saying everybody should stop eating meat all together, I'm saying we should limit our meat consumption and be aware of the strain meat-production puts on our enviroment. You know damn well we are right, meat costs a shit ton of energy to produce compared to veggies, this is a solid fact. Even trying to deny this is costing you credibility. I think you just don't like to get confronted with the negative effects of the choices you make in life, and that's why you get all worked up. That's ok, you're only human. Plentiful? Is that why the U.S. has to sell it to China and other countries in the orient because of how they mistreated their's? Look, it's no worry of mine how you choose to live and eat, I just like to gather the thoughts of other people. You needn't continue to debate points with me, you know where I stand, cheers then #19 -
randomuploads (01/07/2016) [-] That's only a viable way of getting water in very misty conditions.  In huge quantities, maybe. It could save lives in deserts and parts of Africa. Though this is not my point. | ||
| #12 - Comment deleted [+] (3 new replies) | 01/06/2016 on (untitled) | -1 |
| #11 - Comment deleted [+] (33 new replies) | 01/06/2016 on (untitled) | +1 |
| #49 -
ninjahswagg Comment deleted by lean | ||
| #10 - Comment deleted [+] (3 new replies) | 01/06/2016 on (untitled) | 0 |
| #51 -
selfdenyingbeggar Comment deleted by lean #50 -
selfdenyingbeggar Comment deleted by lean | ||
| #10 - 10/10 like canada with guns [+] (1 new reply) | 01/06/2016 on Canadian poem | +1 |
| | ||
| #16 - I agree. This clearly needs to be solved by vigilantism and p… | 01/06/2016 on SY | +7 |
| #5 - No it doesn't. That statement alone shows: A. your lack o… [+] (10 new replies) | 01/06/2016 on Meat | +5 |
| No? Under half of the contiguous US is devoted to animal agriculture, and I never said cattle exclusively, I said livestock, which means farm animals regarded as an asset, which in the US averages at about 1 billion, from little chickens to cattle, all needing a considerable amount of space, food and water to be raised in a free range manner. WHICH I understand isn't what you said initially, as in you had only mentioned grain fed beef. But it's the very operation of animal agriculture that is the issue. Another way to look at it; It takes 4,500 acres to produce 80,000 lbs of free range beef The average US citizen consumes 209 lbs of beef a year That 4,500 acres could only feed 382 people (11.7 acres a person) There's 314 million people in the US, which means that 3.7 billion acres of land would be required to feed each person their delicious stake dinner each and everyday #7 -
lean (01/06/2016) [-]  Do you understand cyclical? There are 98 million cattle, 10% of which are dairy animals. It takes approximately 2 acres per animal for proper grass feeding (average). Because people eat not all at one time and cattle raising is cyclical (18-22 months to raise a beef for slaughter) we have plenty of land. As I said originally, 7kg grain to 1 kg beef is a fallacy. It isn't true. That isn't how animals work, or eat. It takes far less acreage than that to feed a couple hundred head of cattle. Yeah, 80,000 lbs of meat is roughly 200 cows. Good try though. Breaking it down to the fallacious 7:1 rate, because I can tell you aren't going to let that go: Low productivity farmland is about 180 bushels per acre of corn. A bushel weighs 56 lbs. So that's 10,080 lbs of grain per acre. You would need 50-60 acres of poor yield farmland to feed all corn to 80,000 lbs of beef. Soybeans: low productivity is 50 per acre, 60lbs per bushel. You need 187 acres to feed 80,000 lbs of beef on pure beans. Total livestock is negligible after cattle. some 65 million porcine, 9 billion chickens, 9 million horses. Pigs and chickens need areas measured in square feet, not acres each. The total space needed for all other livestock is less than a quarter needed for cattle. Oh dear, my apologies, the concern I'm stressing is the lack of sustainability that comes with the rapid growth of animal agriculture. The 7 to 1 ration is hardly a concern of mine, forgive me for digressing. 2,500 gallons of water are required to produce one pound of beef, 1,000 gallons of water for ONE gallon of milk, 900 gallons for a pound of cheese 477 for a pound of eggs. And unfortunately, yes, desertification is what that is known as (in regards to your first sentence) 1/3 of the planet's surface in now deemed unfit for cultivation as opposed to what it once was, hence excluding the Sahara desert for example, because of, but not limited to (it's a big planet) animal agriculture. And please, I hope you do not try to dismiss this at the very least, as worldwide cows alone drink 45 billion gallons of water and eat 135 billion pounds of food each day. (Based on a rough average of 30 gallons of water and 90 lbs of feed per day for each of 1.5 billion cows.) Do you not think we could put that to better use for those people that are without food and or water? #20 -
randomuploads (01/07/2016) [-] It's not about money. It's about energy-consumption and the state we leave the planet in once we die. I'm not saying everybody should stop eating meat all together, I'm saying we should limit our meat consumption and be aware of the strain meat-production puts on our enviroment. You know damn well we are right, meat costs a shit ton of energy to produce compared to veggies, this is a solid fact. Even trying to deny this is costing you credibility. I think you just don't like to get confronted with the negative effects of the choices you make in life, and that's why you get all worked up. That's ok, you're only human. Plentiful? Is that why the U.S. has to sell it to China and other countries in the orient because of how they mistreated their's? Look, it's no worry of mine how you choose to live and eat, I just like to gather the thoughts of other people. You needn't continue to debate points with me, you know where I stand, cheers then #19 -
randomuploads (01/07/2016) [-] That's only a viable way of getting water in very misty conditions. In huge quantities, maybe. It could save lives in deserts and parts of Africa. Though this is not my point. | ||
| #3 - Guessing you are relying on the 7kg of grain to produce 1 kg b… [+] (17 new replies) | 01/06/2016 on Meat | +14 |
| #14 -
randomuploads (01/07/2016) [-] It doesn't take a genius to figure out it's infinitely more efficient to eat what the cow eats instead of the cow itself. Don't understand why'd you wanne challenge that statement. #16 -
randomuploads (01/07/2016) [-] We have the resources to produce it but only for part of the worlds population. Yea you can eat meat every day, you can also put on the AC all day every day. But that makes you a selfish prick. No it doesn't. That statement alone shows: A. your lack of knowledge about raising range livestock B. your lack of knowledge about the number of livestock in the US (about 98 million cattle) C. Incredible lack of knowledge of the size of the US. over 2.37 billion acres. We could feed one billion cattle (yeah I know lots of mountains, lakes etc) Fact is we could free range raise all livestock on 10-12% of the total land. To top that off, US produces 4x the food needed for our own consumption across 17% of the country defined as arable (crops actually planted, not potentially arable. We could potentially farm as much as 40% of the country) Cattle count: www.cattlenetwork.com/advice-and-tips/cowcalf-producer/cattle-inventory-ranking-all-50-states No? Under half of the contiguous US is devoted to animal agriculture, and I never said cattle exclusively, I said livestock, which means farm animals regarded as an asset, which in the US averages at about 1 billion, from little chickens to cattle, all needing a considerable amount of space, food and water to be raised in a free range manner. WHICH I understand isn't what you said initially, as in you had only mentioned grain fed beef. But it's the very operation of animal agriculture that is the issue. Another way to look at it; It takes 4,500 acres to produce 80,000 lbs of free range beef The average US citizen consumes 209 lbs of beef a year That 4,500 acres could only feed 382 people (11.7 acres a person) There's 314 million people in the US, which means that 3.7 billion acres of land would be required to feed each person their delicious stake dinner each and everyday #7 -
lean (01/06/2016) [-] Do you understand cyclical? There are 98 million cattle, 10% of which are dairy animals. It takes approximately 2 acres per animal for proper grass feeding (average). Because people eat not all at one time and cattle raising is cyclical (18-22 months to raise a beef for slaughter) we have plenty of land. As I said originally, 7kg grain to 1 kg beef is a fallacy. It isn't true. That isn't how animals work, or eat. It takes far less acreage than that to feed a couple hundred head of cattle. Yeah, 80,000 lbs of meat is roughly 200 cows. Good try though. Breaking it down to the fallacious 7:1 rate, because I can tell you aren't going to let that go: Low productivity farmland is about 180 bushels per acre of corn. A bushel weighs 56 lbs. So that's 10,080 lbs of grain per acre. You would need 50-60 acres of poor yield farmland to feed all corn to 80,000 lbs of beef. Soybeans: low productivity is 50 per acre, 60lbs per bushel. You need 187 acres to feed 80,000 lbs of beef on pure beans. Total livestock is negligible after cattle. some 65 million porcine, 9 billion chickens, 9 million horses. Pigs and chickens need areas measured in square feet, not acres each. The total space needed for all other livestock is less than a quarter needed for cattle. Oh dear, my apologies, the concern I'm stressing is the lack of sustainability that comes with the rapid growth of animal agriculture. The 7 to 1 ration is hardly a concern of mine, forgive me for digressing. 2,500 gallons of water are required to produce one pound of beef, 1,000 gallons of water for ONE gallon of milk, 900 gallons for a pound of cheese 477 for a pound of eggs. And unfortunately, yes, desertification is what that is known as (in regards to your first sentence) 1/3 of the planet's surface in now deemed unfit for cultivation as opposed to what it once was, hence excluding the Sahara desert for example, because of, but not limited to (it's a big planet) animal agriculture. And please, I hope you do not try to dismiss this at the very least, as worldwide cows alone drink 45 billion gallons of water and eat 135 billion pounds of food each day. (Based on a rough average of 30 gallons of water and 90 lbs of feed per day for each of 1.5 billion cows.) Do you not think we could put that to better use for those people that are without food and or water? #20 -
randomuploads (01/07/2016) [-] It's not about money. It's about energy-consumption and the state we leave the planet in once we die. I'm not saying everybody should stop eating meat all together, I'm saying we should limit our meat consumption and be aware of the strain meat-production puts on our enviroment. You know damn well we are right, meat costs a shit ton of energy to produce compared to veggies, this is a solid fact. Even trying to deny this is costing you credibility. I think you just don't like to get confronted with the negative effects of the choices you make in life, and that's why you get all worked up. That's ok, you're only human. Plentiful? Is that why the U.S. has to sell it to China and other countries in the orient because of how they mistreated their's? Look, it's no worry of mine how you choose to live and eat, I just like to gather the thoughts of other people. You needn't continue to debate points with me, you know where I stand, cheers then #19 -
randomuploads (01/07/2016) [-] That's only a viable way of getting water in very misty conditions. In huge quantities, maybe. It could save lives in deserts and parts of Africa. Though this is not my point. | ||
| #2 - It's hard to notice the dark side when you are focused on so m… | 01/06/2016 on Y'all weak as shit | +61 |
| #5 - McG was a bad ass. Best scene from the movies. Snape looks worried. [+] (35 new replies) | 01/06/2016 on [ ] not rekt [✓] rekt | +341 |
| #22 -
anon (01/07/2016) [-] i didn't notice he took out the other duelers. wow, snape is actually awesome.  he was a occlumency badass. he would literally enter the mind of the opponent and know what attack was going to come next by hearing them think it, and then reposte it accordingly. so he always knew what his opponents were going to do before they did it. he was a very powerful combat duelist. #57 -
randomsnail (01/07/2016) [-] What you said is both in/correct Severus Snape is a master of the mind arts being BOTH Occlumency and Legilimency. He uses Legilimency to see what others think in a duel in order to know what they will do. Occlumency is the art of defending, organising and or hiding ones mind or thoughts. It bugs me when people, especially fanfiction writers get this wrong. someone else has already made this correction read the whole thread #63 -
randomsnail (01/07/2016) [-] I don't think you comprehend the level of aggravation I feel when it is mixed up. I couldn't gain satisfaction til I had left a comment about it. It would have kept me awake at night and irritated me for days. I don't like being in bad moods, because I get frustrated then I get angry at being frustrated, the frustrated at being angry. I hope you understand, it is a vicious circle and so I HAD to comment.  what about when voldemort straight murdered his ass with a snake voldemort was also a very powerful occlumence, and likely always had his mind blocked from penetration, snape wouldnt have been capable of seeing what voldemort was planning. he had no idea voldemort intended to kill him until it was too late. once the snake was set on him he had no way of combating it, the snake was impervious to any attack snape could use. he had to be good at occlumency because voldemort would enter the minds of hhis subjects to make sure they were loyal to him, snape had to be able to trick voldemort in these situations, because if he didnt voldemort would see snapes true identity as an ally to dumbledore. he had to be capable of tricking one of the most powerful dark wizards to ever live, on a daily basis. this is why other death eaters dont fuck with him, he is second only to voldemort, maybe even stronger in some ways. the death eaters know this which is why none except bellatrix dare to show distain towards him for his years at hogwarts. #15 -
anon (01/06/2016) [-] well if you've red the last book or seen the last movie you'd know he would't try to hurt her anyway >>#14, Hard to say. He never wanted to hurt Harry, sure, but I bet you he would have gladly done James, Sirius, or Lupin. He was a dark, dark dude, with pretty much his only redeeming quality his love for Lily. If he hadn't loved her to the extent that he did, he probably would be banging Bellatrix. He was full baddie until Voldy went after the Potters, as harry witnessed in the memory. snape was never really a "dark" dude. yes he was a death eater but i feel he did that not because he had a hatred for muggles and halfbloods. he never had a true family. he had no real friends, except lily. when lily decided to date snapes bully and hang out with snapes bullies (a seriouslly shit thing to do to be honest) he had nobody then. then lucious malfoy befriends him, and suddenly hes got friends, people respect him, people stop treating him badly. he finally feels like he belongs somewhere, and when these new friends say "we're joining voldemort" he follows because he doesnt want to be alone again. he wants to prove hes strong to his new friends and he does, becoming one of the strongest death eaters alive. if he hadnt been with lucious malfoy and his lot he wouldnt have joined the death eaters, not of his own choice. he was a lonely young guy who jsut wanted to belong. its the same thing which gets young people into gangs, the sense of purpose of family, of belonging.  It was also partially his own infatuation with the dark arts. It was stated pretty plainly in the books that he was enthralled by them and while everyone else was learning to simply to defend against them he was trying to learn everything about them so he could master them, even going so far as to invent his own spells (Sectemsempra being the best example). I think it's pretty safe to say that it's at least a small part of the reason he fell in with Voldemort, he likely thought there was no one alive who knew the dark arts better and probably figured he could learn a thing or two from them. Not saying he was a muggle/mudblood hater, he was definitely not in the death eaters for the same reason as most of the others, but in a sense he was still a "dark" character. #24 -
anon (01/07/2016) [-] you should rewatch it.. or think back and try to understand people better. the character development was good. it's better when you understand snape more.  The books and the movies present two very different characters. No offense to Alan Rickman, he's a great actor, but the books play him like a villain with a few redeeming qualities, while Rickman plays him as a heroic triple agent that simply resents the protagonist. Arguably a much better character, but probably not what Rowling intended for him to come across as. rowling has stated that Allan rickmans portrayal of Snape is one of the more accurate portrayals of her characters. he doesnt really resent harry, not as much as he shows. he simply has to be mean to harry so that there's no suspicion on the death eaters side of him. if when voldemort returned everyone noticed snape treated harry kindly theyd be asking him why and wouldnt trust him, and his cover would be blown. he acted cruel so that if voldemort returned he could say "look ive been treating him like shit all this time i do not like them, im a death eater" there was SOME resentment from snape, but he didnt hate harry. sometiems harry would upset him because when he looked into harrys eyes he saw lilys, everyday at hogwarts harry would be a reminder of his failure and that could make him slightly annoyed at harry for being there. the guy still risked his life to protect harry almost every year. | ||
| #4 - When you meet internet people IRL [+] (1 new reply) | 01/06/2016 on u wot m8? | +124 |
| #14 - Strapping is usually more hassle than it's worth when you are … | 01/06/2016 on porn for woodsmen | 0 |
| #13 - Fiskars are great splitting axes. Do you have a problem with … | 01/06/2016 on porn for woodsmen | 0 |
| #66 - Sure, but for practical reasons why poll them? They can't vot… [+] (1 new reply) | 01/06/2016 on The Trump Rises | +1 |
| | ||
| #50 - This isn't about Mohammad you nit. It's re-enacting the marty… | 01/06/2016 on Straight Up Caught Comp. 8 | -1 |
| #25 - Where most people live there is a thing called manufacturers w… | 01/05/2016 on Best Buy | -4 |
| #17 - Do you think they poll toddlers? [+] (3 new replies) | 01/05/2016 on The Trump Rises | +2 |
| | ||
| #3 - Nah mate, its a joke I get that. Made me laugh. I just wante… | 01/05/2016 on I cannot even see half of them | 0 |
| #5 - Slab on grade, doubt they went through the trouble of building… | 01/05/2016 on Would you live here? | 0 |
| #1 - Comment deleted | 01/05/2016 on Know your place | 0 |
| #15 - One Swat Twat | 01/05/2016 on OK! | +18 |
| #1 - IDK, haven't heard of any rioting or looting. Are you sure it… [+] (4 new replies) | 01/05/2016 on I cannot even see half of them | +2 |
 Now they sound to me like the A-Team. Sorry for posting this without even the slightest clue of what is going on. | ||
Anonymous comments allowed.
11 comments displayed.
#27
-
harbydeath (07/29/2015) [-] if you like sciencey stuff, check out this article, its one of my faves.
www.inquisitr.com/2040259/did-nasa-just-accidentally-produce-a-warp-bubble-emdrive-could-lead-to-warp-drive/
www.inquisitr.com/2040259/did-nasa-just-accidentally-produce-a-warp-bubble-emdrive-could-lead-to-warp-drive/
#26
-
Skrufymunky (06/12/2015) [-] Thank you for your words of wisdom on this post.
funnyjunk.com/Not+price+tags/funny-pictures/5576857/
It's refreshing to see informative comments against this sort of annoying liberal stuff. Not saying liberal's are bad, just it usually appears that the end users are not aware of the side effects / consequences involved with some of this stuff.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
funnyjunk.com/Not+price+tags/funny-pictures/5576857/
It's refreshing to see informative comments against this sort of annoying liberal stuff. Not saying liberal's are bad, just it usually appears that the end users are not aware of the side effects / consequences involved with some of this stuff.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
