-
So many newbies lately! Here is a very important PSA about one of our most vital content policies! Read it even if you are an ancient member!
- Status
C
C92cool
Guest
Original poster
The negative...just get rid of it all. Allow us to become free for what it truly means. I shall then lay in a field and watch the world progress and no longer burn.
- Posting Speed
- One post per day
- Multiple posts per week
- 1-3 posts per week
- One post per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Writing Levels
- Adept
- Advanced
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Primarily Prefer Female
- Genres
- Action-adventure, adult characters, alternate universe, anime, crime drama, cyberpunk, darker themes, drama, dystopia, eastern, edo, epic quest, fairy tale, fantasy, feudal, futuristic, grimdark, heian, high fantasy, low fantasy, magic, modern, modern fantasy, modern scifi, paranormal, psychological, romance, scifi, supernatural, urban fantasy.
Hair ribbons. Glitz Pageants. Vocaloid. Tohou. Just a few things I think the world could forever do without.
K
Kooriryu
Guest
Original poster
Incredulity & Obtuseness
Or the kneejerk reaction to flee to the dictionary as a credible source in discussing shit more complex than whether a word's pluralized form ends in a i, s or es.
Or the kneejerk reaction to flee to the dictionary as a credible source in discussing shit more complex than whether a word's pluralized form ends in a i, s or es.
M
Mad Scientist
Guest
Original poster
S
Shenorai
Guest
Original poster
"Reality" television.
I'm not talking about shows like 'Deadliest Catch' and whatnot that actually show hard-as-fuck jobs (trust me, they make you feel MUCH better and far safer about your own damn job). I mean all of this 'Real Housewives' and 'Toddlers and Tiaras' and other such shows that do NOTHING but distract the viewers with constant arguing, unnecessary drama, belittling overall female appearances, and basically eating away at human intelligence.
They're very detrimental and are completely uninteresting. Give me a REAL story and television might actually be worth watching again.
I'm not talking about shows like 'Deadliest Catch' and whatnot that actually show hard-as-fuck jobs (trust me, they make you feel MUCH better and far safer about your own damn job). I mean all of this 'Real Housewives' and 'Toddlers and Tiaras' and other such shows that do NOTHING but distract the viewers with constant arguing, unnecessary drama, belittling overall female appearances, and basically eating away at human intelligence.
They're very detrimental and are completely uninteresting. Give me a REAL story and television might actually be worth watching again.
- Posting Speed
- Multiple posts per week
- 1-3 posts per week
- One post per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Online Availability
- Sporadically, Though out the Day
- Writing Levels
- Give-No-Fucks
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- No Preferences
- Genres
- - Modern/Magical/High Fantasy
- Paranormal
- Romance-ish
- Supernatural
- Original
- Fandom
- Action
- Adventure
- Espionage
- Apocalyptic
- Alternative Reality
- Genre-Bent Reality
- Steampunk
- Cyberpunk
- Dieselpunk
- Magipunk
- Sci-fi
- Superhuman
Humans. Seriously, why do we even exists? Get ride of humans and the world will re grow around us. No food chain is effected. In fact, animals and the Earth itself would be better off.
- Invitation Status
- Preferred Character Gender
- Genres
- Fantasy is number one. Steampunk, sci-fi, alternate history, and everything else that isn't boringly realistic are also fine by me.
Sabine is here to poke some logic-holes!
Well, let's look at domestic animals. There are an estimated 164 million domestic animals in the USA alone. Without humans, we can expect practically every cat an dog to die- there might be a few survivors, but within ten years they would probably almost all be dead. So, worldwide, there's half a billion animals gone... and I don't think those statistics include fish, reptiles, or amphibians.
Now let's look at production animals. There are about 1.2 billion sheep raised by humans, and we can safely expect that at least 90% of those won't be able to make it without us- populations may or may not rebound, but they are incapable of feeding themselves in the winter, protecting themselves, or escaping the fences we put them in. I'm not even going to look up cows, goats, pigs, etc., but let's assume that there are just as many of each of those as there are sheep. That's about 5.2 billion domestic animals that will die... oh, but we forgot about horses, camels, elephants, llamas, alpacas, etc. So let's put our beginner's estimate at six billion for species that we think of as commonly relying on humans to survive. This means that for every human you want to get rid of, you're probably sentencing an animal to die as well. Unless you want to count pests and garbage-eaters... then every human could be taking two or three animals with us once we start counting up rats, roaches, squirrels, sparrows, doves, pigeons, crows, cowbirds, raccoons, foxes, mice, ants, bedbugs, mosquitoes, ticks, flies, vultures, ravens, seagulls...
Maybe some species would be better off, but we'd be screwing over a lot of them, too.
Also, saying that "no food chain is effected" is something your average third-grader could disprove without needing any resources or materials. Try to name one food chain that isn't effected by humanity at the moment... I tried and couldn't.
Lastly, "why do we even exists?". Well, if you believe in a higher power, go ask it. If you don't, it's because we're amazingly successful. Pandas are adorable and fluffy but they suck some major balls when it comes to the game of survival. We might not be pretty, we might be ruthless and horrible, but we play to win. There aren't many animals that are beating us at the expansion game.
If you want to make an actual difference, go back a few thousand years and get rid of all the humans back then. Much smaller impact.
Burning coal releases 100 times more radiation than an actual nuclear power plant producing the same amount of electricity. Nuclear explosions, while terrible, account for far less total radioactive waste than all the coal that's being burned. Nuclear power plants are arguably one of the cleanest sources of energy, though they are pretty darn scary. If you're going to ban something on account of how bad it is for the environment, though, coal's your best bet.
Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
Not all snakes arepoisonous actually poisonous snakes don't exist, only venomous ones. Some are adorable and eat pests. Can we keep the snakes that don't hurt people and do good things? Besides, look at how stupidly cute this thing is.
Do you want mass starvation? Because that's how you get mass starvation.
Spiders eat mosquitoes, flies, roaches, and other disease-spreading organisms. Millions of people would probably die as a result of the insect population boom following mass spider death.
Personally, I would get rid of greed. Ambition is good and negativity is sometimes needed for motivation, hate just isn't a big enough motivator- but I would really like it if people would just stop at what they needed and then help others. Instead of building up a fortune, how about you get what you need to live a comfortable, happy life and then work on getting other people up to your same level? Instead of taking all that you can get, how about you take all that you can use? Instead of doing your job well so that you get paid more, do your job well so society functions. Structure your corporations to do the most good for the consumer, the public, with just enough for your shareholders to get a profit.
Well, let's look at domestic animals. There are an estimated 164 million domestic animals in the USA alone. Without humans, we can expect practically every cat an dog to die- there might be a few survivors, but within ten years they would probably almost all be dead. So, worldwide, there's half a billion animals gone... and I don't think those statistics include fish, reptiles, or amphibians.
Now let's look at production animals. There are about 1.2 billion sheep raised by humans, and we can safely expect that at least 90% of those won't be able to make it without us- populations may or may not rebound, but they are incapable of feeding themselves in the winter, protecting themselves, or escaping the fences we put them in. I'm not even going to look up cows, goats, pigs, etc., but let's assume that there are just as many of each of those as there are sheep. That's about 5.2 billion domestic animals that will die... oh, but we forgot about horses, camels, elephants, llamas, alpacas, etc. So let's put our beginner's estimate at six billion for species that we think of as commonly relying on humans to survive. This means that for every human you want to get rid of, you're probably sentencing an animal to die as well. Unless you want to count pests and garbage-eaters... then every human could be taking two or three animals with us once we start counting up rats, roaches, squirrels, sparrows, doves, pigeons, crows, cowbirds, raccoons, foxes, mice, ants, bedbugs, mosquitoes, ticks, flies, vultures, ravens, seagulls...
Maybe some species would be better off, but we'd be screwing over a lot of them, too.
Also, saying that "no food chain is effected" is something your average third-grader could disprove without needing any resources or materials. Try to name one food chain that isn't effected by humanity at the moment... I tried and couldn't.
Lastly, "why do we even exists?". Well, if you believe in a higher power, go ask it. If you don't, it's because we're amazingly successful. Pandas are adorable and fluffy but they suck some major balls when it comes to the game of survival. We might not be pretty, we might be ruthless and horrible, but we play to win. There aren't many animals that are beating us at the expansion game.
If you want to make an actual difference, go back a few thousand years and get rid of all the humans back then. Much smaller impact.
Burning coal releases 100 times more radiation than an actual nuclear power plant producing the same amount of electricity. Nuclear explosions, while terrible, account for far less total radioactive waste than all the coal that's being burned. Nuclear power plants are arguably one of the cleanest sources of energy, though they are pretty darn scary. If you're going to ban something on account of how bad it is for the environment, though, coal's your best bet.
Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
Not all snakes are
Do you want mass starvation? Because that's how you get mass starvation.
Spiders eat mosquitoes, flies, roaches, and other disease-spreading organisms. Millions of people would probably die as a result of the insect population boom following mass spider death.
Personally, I would get rid of greed. Ambition is good and negativity is sometimes needed for motivation, hate just isn't a big enough motivator- but I would really like it if people would just stop at what they needed and then help others. Instead of building up a fortune, how about you get what you need to live a comfortable, happy life and then work on getting other people up to your same level? Instead of taking all that you can get, how about you take all that you can use? Instead of doing your job well so that you get paid more, do your job well so society functions. Structure your corporations to do the most good for the consumer, the public, with just enough for your shareholders to get a profit.
H
heliacalRebirth
Guest
Original poster
H
Hatsune Candy
Guest
Original poster
L
Lady B
Guest
Original poster
K
Kitty
Guest
Original poster
- Invitation Status
- Preferred Character Gender
- Genres
- Fantasy is number one. Steampunk, sci-fi, alternate history, and everything else that isn't boringly realistic are also fine by me.
K
Kitty
Guest
Original poster
L
Lady B
Guest
Original poster
Sabine is here to poke some logic-holes!
Well, let's look at domestic animals. There are an estimated 164 million domestic animals in the USA alone. Without humans, we can expect practically every cat an dog to die- there might be a few survivors, but within ten years they would probably almost all be dead. So, worldwide, there's half a billion animals gone... and I don't think those statistics include fish, reptiles, or amphibians.
Now let's look at production animals. There are about 1.2 billion sheep raised by humans, and we can safely expect that at least 90% of those won't be able to make it without us- populations may or may not rebound, but they are incapable of feeding themselves in the winter, protecting themselves, or escaping the fences we put them in. I'm not even going to look up cows, goats, pigs, etc., but let's assume that there are just as many of each of those as there are sheep. That's about 5.2 billion domestic animals that will die... oh, but we forgot about horses, camels, elephants, llamas, alpacas, etc. So let's put our beginner's estimate at six billion for species that we think of as commonly relying on humans to survive. This means that for every human you want to get rid of, you're probably sentencing an animal to die as well. Unless you want to count pests and garbage-eaters... then every human could be taking two or three animals with us once we start counting up rats, roaches, squirrels, sparrows, doves, pigeons, crows, cowbirds, raccoons, foxes, mice, ants, bedbugs, mosquitoes, ticks, flies, vultures, ravens, seagulls...
Maybe some species would be better off, but we'd be screwing over a lot of them, too.
Also, saying that "no food chain is effected" is something your average third-grader could disprove without needing any resources or materials. Try to name one food chain that isn't effected by humanity at the moment... I tried and couldn't.
Lastly, "why do we even exists?". Well, if you believe in a higher power, go ask it. If you don't, it's because we're amazingly successful. Pandas are adorable and fluffy but they suck some major balls when it comes to the game of survival. We might not be pretty, we might be ruthless and horrible, but we play to win. There aren't many animals that are beating us at the expansion game.
If you want to make an actual difference, go back a few thousand years and get rid of all the humans back then. Much smaller impact.
Burning coal releases 100 times more radiation than an actual nuclear power plant producing the same amount of electricity. Nuclear explosions, while terrible, account for far less total radioactive waste than all the coal that's being burned. Nuclear power plants are arguably one of the cleanest sources of energy, though they are pretty darn scary. If you're going to ban something on account of how bad it is for the environment, though, coal's your best bet.
Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
Not all snakes arepoisonousactually poisonous snakes don't exist, only venomous ones. Some are adorable and eat pests. Can we keep the snakes that don't hurt people and do good things? Besides, look at how stupidly cute this thing is.
Do you want mass starvation? Because that's how you get mass starvation.
Spiders eat mosquitoes, flies, roaches, and other disease-spreading organisms. Millions of people would probably die as a result of the insect population boom following mass spider death.
Personally, I would get rid of greed. Ambition is good and negativity is sometimes needed for motivation, hate just isn't a big enough motivator- but I would really like it if people would just stop at what they needed and then help others. Instead of building up a fortune, how about you get what you need to live a comfortable, happy life and then work on getting other people up to your same level? Instead of taking all that you can get, how about you take all that you can use? Instead of doing your job well so that you get paid more, do your job well so society functions. Structure your corporations to do the most good for the consumer, the public, with just enough for your shareholders to get a profit.
That's what
K
Kitty
Guest
Original poster
Oh I totally missed that, I was talking about my brother.
Being a know it all and being someone who actually researches and stuff is totally different anyway. xD Sorry Sabbie.
- Posting Speed
- One post per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Writing Levels
- Give-No-Fucks
- Beginner
- Elementary
- Genres
- Mostly nothing.
I would get rid of people who enjoy swooping in and ruining peoples fun in fun threads that aren't meant to be debates or taken overly seriously.
- Posting Speed
- One post per day
- Multiple posts per week
- 1-3 posts per week
- One post per week
- Slow As Molasses
- Writing Levels
- Adept
- Advanced
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Primarily Prefer Female
- Genres
- Action-adventure, adult characters, alternate universe, anime, crime drama, cyberpunk, darker themes, drama, dystopia, eastern, edo, epic quest, fairy tale, fantasy, feudal, futuristic, grimdark, heian, high fantasy, low fantasy, magic, modern, modern fantasy, modern scifi, paranormal, psychological, romance, scifi, supernatural, urban fantasy.
Only because every other picture I find happens to be one of them! And I don't see a point in them, well, mostly just Touhou... Vocaloid has produced some decent songs..
- Status