They're also the same structure just in general.
Well, the penis head at least.
They both grow from the same base, the base being something more closely resembling a clit.

I nearly stopped on the second word.
"hole-heartedly"
Such pain.

Well, they call themselves Libral, I think? We can quickly agree that their views aren't Libral - far from it - but to somebody who isn't intrinsically familliar with the "Libral/Conservative" dicotomy, it can seem a bit confusing when some people claim to be Libral but act strictly non-liberally.

Explantion hour:

Liberalism in it´s simplest form is translateble from it´s Name: It´s about Liberty and equality.

The former principle is stressed in classical liberalism while the latter is more evident in social liberalism. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation.

So basicly: You like your free speach? You´re ability to critisize? That you can practicle any Religion you want? You have liberal views.

Prominent revolutionaries in the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution.

The Problem about SJW is... that they are radical Liberalists, literally contradicting their liberal view via the call for censorship and acting against free speach. That´s why you can´t take them seriously.

Don't think of the universe as a place, but as an entity.

I guess it comes down to weather or not you can 'fragmentalise' the Universe. Sure one American is different from the others. However, we all view ourselves as different, separate entities.
Consider this thought: is our "Single Universe" the sum of its parts or not? Like a brain and neurons. You wouldn't say "well only that area of my brain likes peanut butter, not me... One small part doesn't represent the whole."

Hm. Well I have experienced flavors that I could see why people liked it, maybe it's an acquired taste, but I did not really like it. Compare that to flavors that I absolutely can't stand, and maybe you could say that a small portion of the flavor center of my brain likes the flavor, but as a whole my brain rejects the flavor. That being said I'm not an expert in neurology, so I don't know if flavor works that way, but it works for the analogy. If we use that analogy for the universe, then a flavor I don't really like is the equivalent of the universe not really caring.

Nope, but you can say the Universe likes farts.

I don't see how. You could say one small piece of the universe likes farts. If one American liked Transformers 3 you wouldn't say America likes Transformers 3. One piece having a perception doesn't mean the whole shares it...

Don't think of the universe as a place, but as an entity.

I guess it comes down to weather or not you can 'fragmentalise' the Universe. Sure one American is different from the others. However, we all view ourselves as different, separate entities.
Consider this thought: is our "Single Universe" the sum of its parts or not? Like a brain and neurons. You wouldn't say "well only that area of my brain likes peanut butter, not me... One small part doesn't represent the whole."

Hm. Well I have experienced flavors that I could see why people liked it, maybe it's an acquired taste, but I did not really like it. Compare that to flavors that I absolutely can't stand, and maybe you could say that a small portion of the flavor center of my brain likes the flavor, but as a whole my brain rejects the flavor. That being said I'm not an expert in neurology, so I don't know if flavor works that way, but it works for the analogy. If we use that analogy for the universe, then a flavor I don't really like is the equivalent of the universe not really caring.

And let the shear-needing sheep species die off completely? Some might go for it, but most conservationist wouldn't go for extinction, even of a man-made animal species.

designations such as 'negroid' and 'mongoloid' are terribly outdated and archaic.
Those are not the currently recognised groups at all.
I'd suggest you read up on some papers that were not published in the 50s.
Blacks are not a different subspecies than asians, they are a different race.
Which is one designation higher than subspecies and this is where things get pretty ambiguous, not because of globalisation but because the genetic variance between two individuals of a different race can oftentimes be the same or even smaller than between two of the same race.
That's why, in biology, designations as specific as this are usually not very useful.
That being said, i would advise you not to try to misuse science as a vehicle for your racism, if that's what you are trying to do, and i'm getting the impression that you are. sorry if i'm wrong.

I'm not trying to push any kind of racism, no worries for thinking that, it's hard to see where people are coming from via text. Most anthropologists absolutely recognize those race designations, though many are trying to find different classifications, because they are dated and, as you said, the genetic variation within them is problematic.

And race is usually a smaller unit than subspecies, but not always. Usually if a species has many different types in the same geographical area they will be considered races, whereas if there is a geographic boundary separating them they often are called subspecies. That is very very general though, there is not a lot of consistency when talking about differences in population at that level because differences are very minor when looking at the grand scheme of things. The differences between the human races are small as well in the big picture.

Given some patterns in animal cataloging the different human races could possibly split the human species into several subspecies from a biological standpoint. However from an anthropological standpoint the boundaries shift too frequently to make any consistent subspecies that everyone would agree on. It's really the difference between biology and anthropology that I think is key here. Using "race" in species classification is still debated in biology and is largely informal, whereas in anthropology it is much more accepted, although the specifics vary depending on the source.

well they are certainly not determined by number of stripes that's for sure.
but, how about you give me some examples of differences between two races that would be enough to designate one Homo Sapiens Sapiens and the other something else(?).
Since the current human population seems to be perfectly capable of consistently producing fertile offspring, there is just no reason to assume that we are not the same species.
That being said, you should realize that designations like race and species are fuzzy, because they imply a fixated nature of gene pools, which is just not the case.

I am very familiar with the fuzziness of the categorization, that's in fact my general point here; humans could be split by our own categorization system if we so choose. But we purposely choose not to, because it would likely be counterproductive.

As far as your first point about differences, I should probably be saying subspecies and not species. Many subspecies of animals are very similar, but their habitats are separated sufficiently and with enough minor genetic variation that they are given different subspecies. Prior to globalization it would have been very easy to split humans into subspecies using the currently recognized major races (mongoloid, negroid, etc). With globalization, we no longer have strict racial "habitats" and the borders have become fuzzy enough that defining subspecies is problematic.

That being said, as I said elsewhere there are plenty of animals that have been given subspecies for much less variation than we have as people.

designations such as 'negroid' and 'mongoloid' are terribly outdated and archaic.
Those are not the currently recognised groups at all.
I'd suggest you read up on some papers that were not published in the 50s.
Blacks are not a different subspecies than asians, they are a different race.
Which is one designation higher than subspecies and this is where things get pretty ambiguous, not because of globalisation but because the genetic variance between two individuals of a different race can oftentimes be the same or even smaller than between two of the same race.
That's why, in biology, designations as specific as this are usually not very useful.
That being said, i would advise you not to try to misuse science as a vehicle for your racism, if that's what you are trying to do, and i'm getting the impression that you are. sorry if i'm wrong.

I'm not trying to push any kind of racism, no worries for thinking that, it's hard to see where people are coming from via text. Most anthropologists absolutely recognize those race designations, though many are trying to find different classifications, because they are dated and, as you said, the genetic variation within them is problematic.

And race is usually a smaller unit than subspecies, but not always. Usually if a species has many different types in the same geographical area they will be considered races, whereas if there is a geographic boundary separating them they often are called subspecies. That is very very general though, there is not a lot of consistency when talking about differences in population at that level because differences are very minor when looking at the grand scheme of things. The differences between the human races are small as well in the big picture.

Given some patterns in animal cataloging the different human races could possibly split the human species into several subspecies from a biological standpoint. However from an anthropological standpoint the boundaries shift too frequently to make any consistent subspecies that everyone would agree on. It's really the difference between biology and anthropology that I think is key here. Using "race" in species classification is still debated in biology and is largely informal, whereas in anthropology it is much more accepted, although the specifics vary depending on the source.

It's not known if we could interbreed with Neanderthals. One hypothesis is that we could and did interbreed at one point, but there's very little knowledge on when or if that occurred. However, if we were able to interbreed at some point, we would have been the same species at the time, and we would merely be different subspecies. There's no wiggle room for categorizing the species of observable mammals.

You are correct in that I should have been saying subspecies and not species. Subspecies can interbreed, but have sufficient morphological or habitat differences to be granted a division. And as I said elsewhere there are many animals (including some of our closest relatives) that have been given subspecies categories with less variations than humans show.

I'm sure there's more to it, such as the mobility of humans possibly causing fuzzier boundaries between potential subspecies classifications, as geographical isolation is one of the important characteristics of a subspecies. That no longer exists with modern humans. But my broad point is, from what I've been told, the scientific community has a very good memory, and every aspiring famous scientist wants to be viewed favorably by the community in terms of papers and awards (an experiment comes to mind recently where scientists responded more positively to accolades than to money. Recognition is very important to people in those fields). And so no one wants to be "that guy" that pushes for scientific racial divisions on the already-fuzzy foundation of subspecies classification. That's a fast way to get blacklisted, putting your name on that kind of paper. So the somewhat arbitrary standards of subspecies classification plus social pressure keeps us as somewhat-official races instead of subspecies. So I've been told anyway.

False, see >>#102

oops, >>#96

False, see >>#102

Yes, but variation is irrelevant because our species is defined by the ability to breed like every other living mammal. Variation just means our species is more adaptable than others. I don't care how bleeding hearts want to define science, but until we can no longer interbreed, we are the same species.

So we are the same species as neanderthals? We could interbreed with them, yet they are a different species. The point I'm trying to make is that there is a lot of wiggle room in determining species.

It's not known if we could interbreed with Neanderthals. One hypothesis is that we could and did interbreed at one point, but there's very little knowledge on when or if that occurred. However, if we were able to interbreed at some point, we would have been the same species at the time, and we would merely be different subspecies. There's no wiggle room for categorizing the species of observable mammals.

You are correct in that I should have been saying subspecies and not species. Subspecies can interbreed, but have sufficient morphological or habitat differences to be granted a division. And as I said elsewhere there are many animals (including some of our closest relatives) that have been given subspecies categories with less variations than humans show.

I'm sure there's more to it, such as the mobility of humans possibly causing fuzzier boundaries between potential subspecies classifications, as geographical isolation is one of the important characteristics of a subspecies. That no longer exists with modern humans. But my broad point is, from what I've been told, the scientific community has a very good memory, and every aspiring famous scientist wants to be viewed favorably by the community in terms of papers and awards (an experiment comes to mind recently where scientists responded more positively to accolades than to money. Recognition is very important to people in those fields). And so no one wants to be "that guy" that pushes for scientific racial divisions on the already-fuzzy foundation of subspecies classification. That's a fast way to get blacklisted, putting your name on that kind of paper. So the somewhat arbitrary standards of subspecies classification plus social pressure keeps us as somewhat-official races instead of subspecies. So I've been told anyway.

so two bengal tigers with a different number of stripes are different species? so im blonde but my mom's brunette so were different species? you were wrong, it's ok.

Those methods are only used for plants, asexual organisms, and extinct species that can't be observed breeding. I don't support extreme multiculturalism, but Stankape was correct. Get your facts straight.

False, see >>#96

oops, >>#96

False, see >>#102

if two individuals can breed and produce fertile offspring, they are the same species.
can a asian lady reproduce with a scandinavian fella? yes they can, and their offspring will be fertile aswell. They are the same species, simple as that.
What about a horse and a donkey? They can reproduce, yes, but the resulting offspring, a mule, will be infertile. So they are not the same species.
simple as that.
what you just wrote was a lead of bullshit really, sorry.

The interbreeding caveat is just one of many ways species are determined. See the exciting adventure below.

well they are certainly not determined by number of stripes that's for sure.
but, how about you give me some examples of differences between two races that would be enough to designate one Homo Sapiens Sapiens and the other something else(?).
Since the current human population seems to be perfectly capable of consistently producing fertile offspring, there is just no reason to assume that we are not the same species.
That being said, you should realize that designations like race and species are fuzzy, because they imply a fixated nature of gene pools, which is just not the case.

I am very familiar with the fuzziness of the categorization, that's in fact my general point here; humans could be split by our own categorization system if we so choose. But we purposely choose not to, because it would likely be counterproductive.

As far as your first point about differences, I should probably be saying subspecies and not species. Many subspecies of animals are very similar, but their habitats are separated sufficiently and with enough minor genetic variation that they are given different subspecies. Prior to globalization it would have been very easy to split humans into subspecies using the currently recognized major races (mongoloid, negroid, etc). With globalization, we no longer have strict racial "habitats" and the borders have become fuzzy enough that defining subspecies is problematic.

That being said, as I said elsewhere there are plenty of animals that have been given subspecies for much less variation than we have as people.

designations such as 'negroid' and 'mongoloid' are terribly outdated and archaic.
Those are not the currently recognised groups at all.
I'd suggest you read up on some papers that were not published in the 50s.
Blacks are not a different subspecies than asians, they are a different race.
Which is one designation higher than subspecies and this is where things get pretty ambiguous, not because of globalisation but because the genetic variance between two individuals of a different race can oftentimes be the same or even smaller than between two of the same race.
That's why, in biology, designations as specific as this are usually not very useful.
That being said, i would advise you not to try to misuse science as a vehicle for your racism, if that's what you are trying to do, and i'm getting the impression that you are. sorry if i'm wrong.

I'm not trying to push any kind of racism, no worries for thinking that, it's hard to see where people are coming from via text. Most anthropologists absolutely recognize those race designations, though many are trying to find different classifications, because they are dated and, as you said, the genetic variation within them is problematic.

And race is usually a smaller unit than subspecies, but not always. Usually if a species has many different types in the same geographical area they will be considered races, whereas if there is a geographic boundary separating them they often are called subspecies. That is very very general though, there is not a lot of consistency when talking about differences in population at that level because differences are very minor when looking at the grand scheme of things. The differences between the human races are small as well in the big picture.

Given some patterns in animal cataloging the different human races could possibly split the human species into several subspecies from a biological standpoint. However from an anthropological standpoint the boundaries shift too frequently to make any consistent subspecies that everyone would agree on. It's really the difference between biology and anthropology that I think is key here. Using "race" in species classification is still debated in biology and is largely informal, whereas in anthropology it is much more accepted, although the specifics vary depending on the source.

Taken from a 2010 science paper (H is a measure of variation):
"Chimpanzees exhibited H of 0.63-0.73, which is very similar to H found in humans (0.588 - 0.807), however, chimpanzees are divided into four subspecies." "Some species like the grey wolf even exhibited a lower H (corresponding to lower genetic diversity) than humans (0.528 vs 0.588 - 0.807), while the grey wolf has been divided into as many as 37 subspecies."

Humans are more diverse both morphologically and genetically than some of the other mammalian species that have been divided into subspecies. What does this mean? Well, it means speciation is a tricky science and has inconsistencies. But you will find that any inconsistencies regarding humans will always lean towards unification and not splitting us into subspecies. I guess you'll have to ask yourself why and come to your own conclusions on it.

Yes, but variation is irrelevant because our species is defined by the ability to breed like every other living mammal. Variation just means our species is more adaptable than others. I don't care how bleeding hearts want to define science, but until we can no longer interbreed, we are the same species.

So we are the same species as neanderthals? We could interbreed with them, yet they are a different species. The point I'm trying to make is that there is a lot of wiggle room in determining species.

It's not known if we could interbreed with Neanderthals. One hypothesis is that we could and did interbreed at one point, but there's very little knowledge on when or if that occurred. However, if we were able to interbreed at some point, we would have been the same species at the time, and we would merely be different subspecies. There's no wiggle room for categorizing the species of observable mammals.

You are correct in that I should have been saying subspecies and not species. Subspecies can interbreed, but have sufficient morphological or habitat differences to be granted a division. And as I said elsewhere there are many animals (including some of our closest relatives) that have been given subspecies categories with less variations than humans show.

I'm sure there's more to it, such as the mobility of humans possibly causing fuzzier boundaries between potential subspecies classifications, as geographical isolation is one of the important characteristics of a subspecies. That no longer exists with modern humans. But my broad point is, from what I've been told, the scientific community has a very good memory, and every aspiring famous scientist wants to be viewed favorably by the community in terms of papers and awards (an experiment comes to mind recently where scientists responded more positively to accolades than to money. Recognition is very important to people in those fields). And so no one wants to be "that guy" that pushes for scientific racial divisions on the already-fuzzy foundation of subspecies classification. That's a fast way to get blacklisted, putting your name on that kind of paper. So the somewhat arbitrary standards of subspecies classification plus social pressure keeps us as somewhat-official races instead of subspecies. So I've been told anyway.

"But among dogs, which are well known for their hybrid (or mongrel) varieties, different breeds can mate and have viable offspring, so they are all found under the umbrella of a single species, Canis familiaris."

It actually has to do with ability to breed with each other successfully(some species can interbreed with others, but their offspring is generally infertile. See mules, zions, etc), not some liberal bullshit.

lol, liberal bullshit, this is science don't get all bent out of shape. If interbreeding was the only requirement then neanderthals would be the same species as human, and they most certainly are not. See my response to stankape below for a broader explanation. There are many ways biologists determine speciation, but interbreeding sticks in people's minds because it's the easiest for someone without a biology background to understand.

That's categorically false. Species aren't defined by physical traits. Litter ally the only thing that let's you know if two animals are the same species is if they can mate, and if they can produce viable offspring (a.k.a. fertile babies). A lion and a tiger can mate, but the offspring is sterile so they're different species. Animals of the same species have different appearances all the time. Lrn2biology

Sorry, but I'm afraid you'll need to instead. Interbreeding is merely one of several ways scientists determine speciation. If only life were that simple. "To account for these and other issues, biologists and palaeontologists use a whole raft of different 'species concepts' that can help separate species from one another and also identify new species. We might recognise them as separate because they can't interbreed with close relatives, but also on their anatomy, behaviour, genetics or evolutionary history. This can naturally lead to disagreement with which definition is best for a given putative species, or just how much difference is required to identify a separate species, but in general agreements are quite broad, and quibbling comes down to certain problematic specimens or populations." taken from www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2013/jun/20/dinosaurs-fossils

There are a ton of methods used to determine a species, interbreeding is just one method widely recognized because it's simple for non-biologists to comprehend. Humans are one of those "problematic populations" because of the social ramifications,

so two bengal tigers with a different number of stripes are different species? so im blonde but my mom's brunette so were different species? you were wrong, it's ok.

Those methods are only used for plants, asexual organisms, and extinct species that can't be observed breeding. I don't support extreme multiculturalism, but Stankape was correct. Get your facts straight.

False, see >>#96

oops, >>#96

False, see >>#102

"It's probably going to take him at least another 30 to jump down and clear the wire away to let trucks through."

Why? It took him like 10 seconds to set up the wire in the first gif, and it would obviously be even easier to take it down.

And you seem to have fucked up your own math. As you said it's been 45 seconds. A red light can be 2 minutes long, and even a very realistic average would be 75-90 seconds or so. Even if it took him an absurd 30 seconds to jump down and rip off a wire he'd be absolutely fine, since 45 + 30 is 75 and not 120 as you seem to think.

I did fuck up my math. I'm sorry weird juggling prick, do your thing