Antarctica - A wall of ice?

why did the EV in the 90s get confiscated?

To be fair to the 90's electric cars that never happened. Battery technology really struggled to make a compelling technology until modern Lithium-Ion showed up. And after that it was a cost per Kwh problem. All while fuel was cheaper than water.

The development of cell phones and laptops drove new battery technology that allowed EV's to become a thing. Im not sure if EV's would have seen any mass adoption even if oil companies where not being massive jerks.

Today, EV's are rapidly becoming cheaper to own than ICE cars. ICE cars will naturally disappear from our roads. Trucks and heavy duty vehicles may opt for Hydrogen fuel cells over time. Which as basically just EV's with an extra step.

Irrelevant


Bulba is under the insane belief monpoliues and govt control only apply to ev and his saintly big oil would never abuse its power over him.

He needs to reconcile the confiscation of ev in the 90s.
He has no sense of self awareness in hypocrisy.... probably whh he sa maga hat qanonsense.

Irrelevant


Bulba is under the insane belief monpoliues and govt control only apply to ev and his saintly big oil would never abuse its power over him.

He needs to reconcile the confiscation of ev in the 90s.
He has no sense of self awareness in hypocrisy.... probably whh he sa maga hat qanonsense.

I am under no such delusion.

I know that electric cats are inefficient and dangerous, so no replacing gas ones means that you haven't rushed to replace something bad with something much worse. the towns they mine for lithium or lead or whatever go from green paradises to having even the water spoiled.

It's sorta like Final Fantasy 7. They talk about in the Gold Saucer arc how Corel used to be on coal power. Dirty smoggy power, to be sure. Then they talked people into using Mako ( "Hey kids, coal is unclean... wouldn't you rather strip the energy from the planet itself? Doesn't that seem much cleaner?") and everything went south.

Just cuz something seems cleaner doesn't mean it is. Listen when people are trying to tell you things. All of the battery materials are either impractical enough that they couldn't cheaply make (solid state batteries) or require mining of a point that is destructive to the nearby town, or actually pollute the land and water nearby, or deplete massive resources when charging said device.

But you don't care. Oil barons are getting richer as we squeeze the public trying to switch people against their will to EVs. So what's your point? It dtill happens, and happens more when you coerce others to buy cars they wouldn't normally.

Right but get this and this is the point im trying to make -

your outrage towards ev is irrational.
All the reasons you are against ev can equally be applied to gas.
You make no sense.


Say it back to me in your own words so i have some sense we are both speaking english.

I am under no such delusion.

I literally just showed you how the images you shared of "lithium mines" where actually copper and gold mines.
How does this not make you stop and think that maybe you have the wrong information?

Your also not discussing specific points, but rather waving over them all as "its bad and, LALALALA, you wont change my mind"

Coal mining is LITERALLY strip mining, and it does so using thousands of times more area than lithium mines.

Go ACTUALLY research the topic over pulling meme-ably bad info from facebook.

I am under no such delusion.

The Dunning-Kruger is very, very strong in you.

don't get him started on parabolas...

or in this case - upside down parabolas.



he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia

don't get him started on parabolas...

or in this case - upside down parabolas.



he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia

Yeah, never did answer the universal down question. 

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 30, 2022, 08:19:10 AM

don't get him started on parabolas...

or in this case - upside down parabolas.



he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia

Yeah, never did answer the universal down question.

Here's the answer. There can be no universal down in a round Earth. Down would be toward the center, meaning down is sideways at the equator. This is absurd.

There can only be a universal down if the entire Earth is sunny-side up, like it is in any proper flat Earth.

Coal mining is LITERALLY strip mining, and it does so using thousands of times more area than lithium mines.

No no, coal mining gives you black lung. So it's better for the environment.

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 30, 2022, 01:04:54 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 30, 2022, 08:19:10 AM

don't get him started on parabolas...

or in this case - upside down parabolas.



he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia

Yeah, never did answer the universal down question.

Here's the answer. There can be no universal down in a round Earth. Down would be toward the center, meaning down is sideways at the equator. This is absurd.

Oh my lord. I don't even know where to begin.

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 30, 2022, 01:04:54 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 30, 2022, 08:19:10 AM

don't get him started on parabolas...

or in this case - upside down parabolas.



he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia

Yeah, never did answer the universal down question.

Here's the answer. There can be no universal down in a round Earth. Down would be toward the center, meaning down is sideways at the equator. This is absurd.

There can only be a universal down if the entire Earth is sunny-side up, like it is in any proper flat Earth.

Quote

Coal mining is LITERALLY strip mining, and it does so using thousands of times more area than lithium mines.

No no, coal mining gives you black lung. So it's better for the environment.

You dumb.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 30, 2022, 08:29:28 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 30, 2022, 01:04:54 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 30, 2022, 08:19:10 AM

don't get him started on parabolas...

or in this case - upside down parabolas.



he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia

Yeah, never did answer the universal down question.

Here's the answer. There can be no universal down in a round Earth. Down would be toward the center, meaning down is sideways at the equator. This is absurd.

Oh my lord. I don't even know where to begin.

Theset two words.
Universal:
1.Off, relating to, or affecting the entire universe.
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration; applicable in all cases (synonym: general).
3. Done, produced, or shared by all members of the class or group under consideration.

Down:
noun

 1.   Fine, soft, fluffy feathers forming the first plumage of a young bird and underlying the contour feathers in certain adult birds.
2. A covering of soft, short hairs, as on some leaves or fruit.
3. A soft, silky, or feathery substance, such as the first growth of a human beard.

adverb

 1.  From a higher to a lower place or position.
2. Toward, to, or on the ground, floor, or bottom.
3. Downstairs.
4. In or into a sitting, kneeling, or reclining position.
5. In or into one's stomach.

Universal down, towards a center is not really universal. It's  more of a relative down. At the poles, the center  is straight down. The further south from north you get, the more it's "down and to the side", at the equator, you are jumping to the side.  Below the equator at the south pole, down is up, and up is down.

No wonder you get taken in by cultural relativism and the idea there isn't universal morality. And no wonder you get swallowed up by ideas that say down is up, and up is down. If no universal down exists, you cannot say that something is universally wrong. "Well in Limsum society, thet sat killing people is justice and mercy, and raping women is their right. That's just their culture I guess, and we shouldn't judge."  (An anagram for Muslim, btw) No, universal means there is a standard by which we can say, "No, this culture is run by an evil sect. Murder and rape are wrong. It is a good thing to forgive people, but this sect has to go."

 The idea of something being universal means it is applicable the same way everywhere. Not that it constantly must adjust based on location. You can either have a down at the center of the Earth, relative to our location, or you can have universal down. Not both. And the idea of RE types using that term is absurd.

You, bulmbles, have a universal-down for you flat earth.


We, smart people, have a relative down-to-center.

Dont out your wrong universe rules into our correct one.

Theset two words.
Universal:
1.Off, relating to, or affecting the entire universe.
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration; applicable in all cases (synonym: general).
3. Done, produced, or shared by all members of the class or group under consideration.

Down:
noun

<irrelevant>

adverb

1.  From a higher to a lower place or position.
2. Toward, to, or on the ground, floor, or bottom.
<irrelevant>

Universal down, towards a center is not really universal. It's  more of a relative down. At the poles, the center is straight down. The further south from north you get, the more it's "down and to the side", at the equator, you are jumping to the side.  Below the equator at the south pole, down is up, and up is down.

But if you claim there is no universal down, then what do "down", "down and to the side", "to the side", and "up" mean in that last paragraph? If there is no universal down, then there is no "universal sideways" or "universal up", either? Why do you insist that "down" is "toward the south"?

Defining down as "toward the center of the earth" is meaningful only in the region of space where earth's gravity dominates. That is, inside, on the surface of, or near the earth. For the class of things in this region of space, i.e. everything in, on, and near the earth, which includes all humans (except for a handful for a brief time so far, and until the next manned lunar mission). This is universal according to your definitions 2. and 3 for all people on earth, which for the time being is all people.

The idea of something being universal means it is applicable the same way everywhere. Not that it constantly must adjust based on location. You can either have a down at the center of the Earth, relative to our location, or you can have universal down. Not both. And the idea of RE types using that term is absurd.

Look at your definitions 2. and 3. for "universal" again. Emphasis added in the first quote block for your convenience.

Quote from: Stash on September 30, 2022, 08:58:33 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 30, 2022, 08:29:28 PM

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 30, 2022, 01:04:54 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 30, 2022, 08:19:10 AM

don't get him started on parabolas...

or in this case - upside down parabolas.



he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia

Yeah, never did answer the universal down question.

Here's the answer. There can be no universal down in a round Earth. Down would be toward the center, meaning down is sideways at the equator. This is absurd.

Oh my lord. I don't even know where to begin.

Universal down, towards a center is not really universal. It's  more of a relative down. At the poles, the center  is straight down. The further south from north you get, the more it's "down and to the side", at the equator, you are jumping to the side.  Below the equator at the south pole, down is up, and up is down.

Pro-tip: Learn a little something about the thing you are arguing against.

You are literally saying what a 2nd grader might think - "Hey Mommy, why are people in Australia hanging upside-down?"

I didn't think you could get any more ignorant, but you have exceeded my expectations.

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 30, 2022, 01:04:54 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on September 30, 2022, 08:19:10 AM

don't get him started on parabolas...

or in this case - upside down parabolas.



he already was confused about upside down people in austaralia

Yeah, never did answer the universal down question.

Here's the answer. There can be no universal down in a round Earth. Down would be toward the center, meaning down is sideways at the equator. This is absurd.

There can only be a universal down if the entire Earth is sunny-side up, like it is in any proper flat Earth.

Quote

Coal mining is LITERALLY strip mining, and it does so using thousands of times more area than lithium mines.

No no, coal mining gives you black lung. So it's better for the environment.

But you said if the Earth were a sphere people in Australia would have to hang like bats.  Universal down is what that would require, and absolutely is not part of what we experience or what we say about how gravity works.  YOU claimed otherwise, now explain what universal down is and how it works.  It ISNT part of a spherical Earth at all, we never claimed it was.  YOU tried to use it as a strawman argument, now explain what causes it. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 01, 2022, 04:42:42 AM

Theset two words.
Universal:
1.Off, relating to, or affecting the entire universe.
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration; applicable in all cases (synonym: general).
3. Done, produced, or shared by all members of the class or group under consideration.

Down:
noun

<irrelevant>

adverb

1.  From a higher to a lower place or position.
2. Toward, to, or on the ground, floor, or bottom.
<irrelevant>

Universal down, towards a center is not really universal. It's  more of a relative down. At the poles, the center is straight down. The further south from north you get, the more it's "down and to the side", at the equator, you are jumping to the side.  Below the equator at the south pole, down is up, and up is down.

But if you claim there is no universal down, then what do "down", "down and to the side", "to the side", and "up" mean in that last paragraph? If there is no universal down, then there is no "universal sideways" or "universal up", either? Why do you insist that "down" is "toward the south"?

Defining down as "toward the center of the earth" is meaningful only in the region of space where earth's gravity dominates. That is, inside, on the surface of, or near the earth. For the class of things in this region of space, i.e. everything in, on, and near the earth, which includes all humans (except for a handful for a brief time so far, and until the next manned lunar mission). This is universal according to your definitions 2. and 3 for all people on earth, which for the time being is all people.

Quote

The idea of something being universal means it is applicable the same way everywhere. Not that it constantly must adjust based on location. You can either have a down at the center of the Earth, relative to our location, or you can have universal down. Not both. And the idea of RE types using that term is absurd.

Look at your definitions 2. and 3. for "universal" again. Emphasis added in the first quote block for your convenience.

Big fluffy down is NOT irrelevant. It's how you globalists sleep at night. Think about that. Also, it wasn't MY definition. I got it from the internet.

But you said if the Earth were a sphere people in Australia would have to hang like bats.  Universal down is what that would require, and absolutely is not part of what we experience or what we say about how gravity works.  YOU claimed otherwise, now explain what universal down is and how it works.  It ISNT part of a spherical Earth at all, we never claimed it was.  YOU tried to use it as a strawman argument, now explain what causes it. 

That wasn't a strawman. Without a universal down, everyone on the equator hangs sideways around a rim, and then oh so gradually but nonetheless, they start towards hanging like bats. That's ridiculous.

Flat Earth asserts that people throughout the Earth live and work upright like decent folk, and there are inner and outer zones that are north and south of the equator. You can only get a truly universal down through this theory, and it's beautiful. It means if I dig straight down, rather than going to China, I either burn up to cinders, or I fall through into space.

Correct

Round ball earth does NOT have a universl down.
Therefore equator peiple and astralians dont do the thing you think they do.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on October 01, 2022, 08:48:03 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 01, 2022, 04:42:42 AM

Theset two words.
Universal:
1.Off, relating to, or affecting the entire universe.
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration; applicable in all cases (synonym: general).
3. Done, produced, or shared by all members of the class or group under consideration.

Down:
noun

<irrelevant>

adverb

1.  From a higher to a lower place or position.
2. Toward, to, or on the ground, floor, or bottom.
<irrelevant>

Universal down, towards a center is not really universal. It's  more of a relative down. At the poles, the center is straight down. The further south from north you get, the more it's "down and to the side", at the equator, you are jumping to the side.  Below the equator at the south pole, down is up, and up is down.

But if you claim there is no universal down, then what do "down", "down and to the side", "to the side", and "up" mean in that last paragraph? If there is no universal down, then there is no "universal sideways" or "universal up", either? Why do you insist that "down" is "toward the south"?

Defining down as "toward the center of the earth" is meaningful only in the region of space where earth's gravity dominates. That is, inside, on the surface of, or near the earth. For the class of things in this region of space, i.e. everything in, on, and near the earth, which includes all humans (except for a handful for a brief time so far, and until the next manned lunar mission). This is universal according to your definitions 2. and 3 for all people on earth, which for the time being is all people.

Quote

The idea of something being universal means it is applicable the same way everywhere. Not that it constantly must adjust based on location. You can either have a down at the center of the Earth, relative to our location, or you can have universal down. Not both. And the idea of RE types using that term is absurd.

Look at your definitions 2. and 3. for "universal" again. Emphasis added in the first quote block for your convenience.

Big fluffy down is NOT irrelevant. It's how you globalists sleep at night. Think about that. Also, it wasn't MY definition. I got it from the internet.

Quote

But you said if the Earth were a sphere people in Australia would have to hang like bats.  Universal down is what that would require, and absolutely is not part of what we experience or what we say about how gravity works.  YOU claimed otherwise, now explain what universal down is and how it works.  It ISNT part of a spherical Earth at all, we never claimed it was.  YOU tried to use it as a strawman argument, now explain what causes it. 

That wasn't a strawman. Without a universal down, everyone on the equator hangs sideways around a rim, and then oh so gradually but nonetheless, they start towards hanging like bats. That's ridiculous.

Flat Earth asserts that people throughout the Earth live and work upright like decent folk, and there are inner and outer zones that are north and south of the equator. You can only get a truly universal down through this theory, and it's beautiful. It means if I dig straight down, rather than going to China, I either burn up to cinders, or I fall through into space.

As I said, WE do not use universal down.  I.e. there is a downwards pull to the universe, or a up and down for the universe as a whole.  WE demonstrate there is an acceleration due to gravity which makes down a local phenomenon, or towards the center of the mass.  There would be no sideways people or upside-down people.  You clearly tried to use it saying that people would be hanging upside-down in Australia due to there position on the Earth.  It was exactly a STRAWMAN argument. 
Now, due you believe there is there a universal down?  If so, what causes it?  If not, admit and apologize for the strawman argument.  I'm not saying concede your FE idiocy, I'm saying concede that there would be no upside-down people hanging from the globe.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on October 01, 2022, 08:48:03 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 01, 2022, 04:42:42 AM

Theset two words.
Universal:
1.Off, relating to, or affecting the entire universe.
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration; applicable in all cases (synonym: general).
3. Done, produced, or shared by all members of the class or group under consideration.

Down:
noun

<irrelevant>

adverb

1.  From a higher to a lower place or position.
2. Toward, to, or on the ground, floor, or bottom.
<irrelevant>

Universal down, towards a center is not really universal. It's  more of a relative down. At the poles, the center is straight down. The further south from north you get, the more it's "down and to the side", at the equator, you are jumping to the side.  Below the equator at the south pole, down is up, and up is down.

But if you claim there is no universal down, then what do "down", "down and to the side", "to the side", and "up" mean in that last paragraph? If there is no universal down, then there is no "universal sideways" or "universal up", either? Why do you insist that "down" is "toward the south"?

Defining down as "toward the center of the earth" is meaningful only in the region of space where earth's gravity dominates. That is, inside, on the surface of, or near the earth. For the class of things in this region of space, i.e. everything in, on, and near the earth, which includes all humans (except for a handful for a brief time so far, and until the next manned lunar mission). This is universal according to your definitions 2. and 3 for all people on earth, which for the time being is all people.

Quote

The idea of something being universal means it is applicable the same way everywhere. Not that it constantly must adjust based on location. You can either have a down at the center of the Earth, relative to our location, or you can have universal down. Not both. And the idea of RE types using that term is absurd.

Look at your definitions 2. and 3. for "universal" again. Emphasis added in the first quote block for your convenience.

Big fluffy down is NOT irrelevant. It's how you globalists sleep at night. Think about that. Also, it wasn't MY definition. I got it from the internet.

BFD [big fluffy down] is irrelevant. It doesn't exist - can't get more irrelevant than that.

You posted those definitions without attribution and used them to justify your argument. You own them.

Quote

But you said if the Earth were a sphere people in Australia would have to hang like bats.  Universal down is what that would require, and absolutely is not part of what we experience or what we say about how gravity works.  YOU claimed otherwise, now explain what universal down is and how it works.  It ISNT part of a spherical Earth at all, we never claimed it was.  YOU tried to use it as a strawman argument, now explain what causes it. 

That wasn't a strawman.

Yes it was.

Without a universal down, everyone on the equator hangs sideways around a rim, and then oh so gradually but nonetheless, they start towards hanging like bats. That's ridiculous.

Which is why we say there is no universal down. Universal down as you imagine it is your concept, not ours; we say it doesn't exist. That's why this argument is a strawman.

Flat Earth asserts that people throughout the Earth live and work upright like decent folk, and there are inner and outer zones that are north and south of the equator. You can only get a truly universal down through this theory, and it's beautiful. It means if I dig straight down, rather than going to China, I either burn up to cinders, or I fall through into space.

And on a spherical earth where down is toward the center, people anywhere on or near the surface stand upright, anywhere on the globe. If I could dig straight through the earth, I'd burn to cinders by the time I reached earth's core because the core is hot enough to melt iron. If I could somehow dig straight through to the other side and survive the through trip, I'd pop out at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. Glub.

For some fun, see https://www.antipodesmap.com/ and enter your location.

You seemed to have missed the question I asked before.
Do you complain this much about needing to have seatbelts in your car and headlights and so on?

4. I had to look up what Ultracapacitors were.
https://vlab.amrita.edu/?sub=77&brch=270&sim=1390&cnt=1

Quote

Ultracapacitors are made up of two metal plates coated with loosely packed activated carbon which is immersed in electrolyte with positive and negative ions.

Wasn't everyone telling us that carbon is so bad, and we should be cutting down on the amount we use? Yet here we're using it for batteries. Also, the article mentions that these are not really batteries, but the back-up energy systems to help lighten the load of lithium batteries. So anything bad about lithium is still true of this.

If you had to look up what it is, you probably shouldn't start spouting nonsense about it.
They don't want people to BURN carbon. Using it as a material in a supercapacitor is quite different. That doesn't burn it.

The cost is impractical (wikipedia goes on to say that the technology has alot of problems and failures, so paying $100k doesn't guarantee it will work), meaning that this is just a pipedream and you are stuck with the other options, all of which are not eco-friendly.

Or that it is just a new technology.
But you don't seem to understand these either.
They still typically use lithium, but they use a solid electrolyte instead of a liquid or gel.

I never said we don't have a very high amount of evil involved in the oil trade. But any alternative starts with using materials we already have, not scouring the world for ones that force more people into unclean mining conditions.

No, it doesn't.
It involves looking at the cost and benefit of each, to see which is less damaging.

There is no king but King Jesus.

So you only accept really evil tyrants, like the alleged illegitimate son of an evil tyrant that tortured people to show off?

Your faith is tyranny and abhorrent.

If your evil tyrant existed and gave a damn, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

No, a careful  reading of the gospel reveals he died BECAUSE of that, and he died so that the world would no longer be governed by lockstep. He died for all our sins. And our biggest sin is statism. Wanting kings to govern us, instead of God (which he won't, meaning anarchy).

A careful, intelligent reading of the gospel, rather than just trying to prop up an abhorrent religion, reveals that his death makes absolutely no sense as portrayed.
Instead, it makes sense in one of 4 ways:
1 - He was actually Satan/the son of Satan. He got people to discard the abhorrent commands of God (at least in part, just look at how many Christians make the excuse that something is the OT so doesn't have to be followed), and sacrificed himself to the evil tyrant God to save humanity from God.
2 - It was all propaganda, where God created a pawn to die to pretend God loves people to con foolish people into thinking that God loves them, rather than treating them as a toy to be messed with as he pleases.
3 - It was all a misunderstanding, and Jesus was just a regular guy, murdered by a bunch of religious nuts.
4 - It is all fantasy. A pathetic fairy tale.

Here's the answer. There can be no universal down in a round Earth. Down would be toward the center, meaning down is sideways at the equator. This is absurd.

No, what is absurd is you.
Down is not sideways at the equator, it is down, towards the centre.
There is absolutely nothing absurd about that.

But because you have no rational argument against the RE, you just spout childish garbage like this, appealing to a magical universal down, to try claiming people on the equator are sideways.
And this comment of yours just shows that you understand that is pure garbage, that there is no universal down for a RE, so there are no magical sideways people.

You are effectively starting with the baseless, refuted assumption that Earth is flat and has a magical universal down to try to say that a RE isn't flat.

That is you being absurd.

Universal down, towards a center is not really universal. It's  more of a relative down. At the poles, the center  is straight down. The further south from north you get, the more it's "down and to the side", at the equator, you are jumping to the side.  Below the equator at the south pole, down is up, and up is down.

No, regardless of where you are, down is down.
Down being relative doesn't mean down is sideways or up. It is still down.

It is just that down at one location isn't in the same absolute direction as down in another location.

No wonder you get taken in by cultural relativism and the idea there isn't universal morality.

I will much prefer subjective morality of man over the subjective morality of an evil tyrant, which by the way is perfectly fine with rape and slavery.

"Well in Limsum society, thet sat killing people is justice and mercy, and raping women is their right. That's just their culture I guess, and we shouldn't judge."

You mean in Jewish society? Were the Jews were God's chosen people, so when the invaded a town, they got to keep the women for themselves.

Or did you forget about your evil POS being fine with rape?

And the idea of RE types using that term is absurd.

Which just shows how badly you fail to understand that point.
The point is that you are appealing to a magical universal down to try and say there is a problem for a RE.
But you cannot justify this magic at all.

That wasn't a strawman. Without a universal down, everyone on the equator hangs sideways around a rim, and then oh so gradually but nonetheless, they start towards hanging like bats. That's ridiculous.

No, that is a strawman.
It is only WITH a universal down that you can say people on the equator are sideways.
Your strawman is ridiculous.

You need a universal down for your argument to work.

No, the Jews didn't create foer themselves booty (pardon the expression) rules. In fact, a woman is off-limits to a Jewish male unlwss she makes a commitment to the Jewish community and converts. In fact, they shouldn't even be seeing each other.

You ought to do us a favor and actually read both the Torah and the Quran. Isn't it realy the Jews, indeed. The Jews are guilty of things for sure, but war crimes, and treating other humans as chattel is not among them.

Yes, yes, tell me how it's so much more virtuous to be mining carbon to turn it into nonbiodegradeable batteries that potetially create pollution in landfills vs burning.

No, impractical is impractical. Technology ony works when it is cheap enough to use. Srop the sunk cost and greater fool fallacies. Nobody is buying. It's too expensive now, until it's cheap, not an option. Nobody will pay $100k for a car, just for its battery.

Protip: we already have oil technology. By definition, the technology that doesn't involve raping virgin forests to clear land for mining new materials is by default the most eco-friendly option. The second most eco-friendly option is only mining in barren areas (rocky, snowy, or sandy areas), not forests, swamps, and plains.

That tortured people to show off, you say. Yes, because God is so much more cruel than we humans... oh wait, no. Humans invented crucifixion. Humans also invented every torture method there is. God is not a torturer, nor is he responsible for anything that happens to you. That's like blaming the mother f a dog for its master beating it until it's a killer dofg. The morher is only responsible for its being alive and the fact that it is mortal.
But secularists see life itself as torture, which is why they routiney have pets kiled and people, caiing it's euthanasia.

Meanwhile, this man allowed himself to be tortured at the hands of humans.

A careful, intelligent reading of the gospel, rather than just trying to prop up an abhorrent religion, reveals that his death makes absolutely no sense as portrayed.
Instead, it makes sense in one of 4 ways:
1 - He was actually Satan/the son of Satan. He got people to discard the abhorrent commands of God (at least in part, just look at how many Christians make the excuse that something is the OT so doesn't have to be followed), and sacrificed himself to the evil tyrant God to save humanity from God.
2 - It was all propaganda, where God created a pawn to die to pretend God loves people to con foolish people into thinking that God loves them, rather than treating them as a toy to be messed with as he pleases.
3 - It was all a misunderstanding, and Jesus was just a regular guy, murdered by a bunch of religious nuts.
4 - It is all fantasy. A pathetic fairy tale.

Proving that some atheists are actually Satanists.

A careful reading of the gospel starts with Genesis, then Exodus, skips the law for later, moves to Samuel & Kings, then gradually to the New Testament. This is what a clear reading of the Old Testament yields.

5. God actually is Jesus. The people of ancient Judaism understood that God is a person, and tests us, but is ultimately on our side. Much like the tricks of Cotyote or Loki, but mostly benign. God travels with us, and God loves us, enough even to die for us. Then around Samuel and Kings, the Jews settled in their lands. They forgot that God was a person, and instead idolized teples and sets of laws. They wanted a king to be like other nations, they wanted idols. And so God drove them from their lands to remind them that these things are conditional. But they built an even more monstrous temple. So God came in person. The "God" that seems evil is following centuries of Babylonian revision of the Jews' own texts. Yet they prefer this lie to the truth that is Jesus. This is what I mean that Jews are guilty of alot.

 You are correct, there are no sideways people. Because this entire theory is nonsense. It is a godless view of Earth that is intended to belittle and enslave humans, reducing them to tiny specks in a universe that doesn't care, rather than the only place with life known. We humans are pretty damned important, and the idea of heliocentric RE is to mention an Earth unsuitable for life, rather than one perfectly designed for life. The amount of motion alone that the Earth supposedly travels would be enough to shatter our internal organs. Hanging upside-down would give all of us bloodrush. The water of the Earth should lower to the southern hemisphere (not just a majority but all of it), effectively dehydrating everyone in the north. Any of these factors should kill us. If you still see God as a torturer, I can't tell you any good news. But there is alot that even I (among the most bored, depressed, and cynical people alive) can say is a blessing to this life. We're not being tortured.

Protip: we already have oil technology.

By your logic, we should have just stuck with wood technology. I mean, we already had it before oil tech.

No, the Jews didn't create foer themselves booty (pardon the expression) rules. In fact, a woman is off-limits to a Jewish male unlwss she makes a commitment to the Jewish community and converts. In fact, they shouldn't even be seeing each other.

You ought to do us a favor and actually read both the Torah and the Quran. Isn't it realy the Jews, indeed. The Jews are guilty of things for sure, but war crimes, and treating other humans as chattel is not among them.

How about instead of telling me to do that, you do it yourself?
For example, have you read Numbers 31, where the Jews were ordered to kill every man and every woman that had been with a man but got to keep the women that hadn't been with a man for themselves?
Deuteronomy 20 and 21 likewise discuss female spoils of war.

Deuteronomy 22 describes the punishment for raping a non-betrothed virgin, to marry her and pay her father, and the crime for being raped in a city is to be put to death (both the rapist and the victim).

So you are promoting abhorrent garbage.

No, impractical is impractical.

If humanity took that approach to everything, virtually nothing would ever be made.
We would have discarded electricity as impractical, and never developed anything that depended upon it.

Initially electricity was nothing more than a gimmick with no real practical use. One of the first electric lights needed to be powered by a battery consisting of 2000 cells, which filled a basement. This only lasted long enough to show the principle and wasn't bright enough to illuminate a room.
By all measures it was entirely impractical at that time to use an electric light to illuminate any area.

Yet look at where we are now, using electric lights so often for almost all illumination other than that from the sun.

The same can be said for almost any technology. That initially it was far too impractical to be useful except in incredible rare circumstances; but so much has now become very practical.

That tortured people to show off, you say. Yes

Yes, or as it is put in the Bible, to make his wonders multiply.
But of course, you want to ignore that and pretend the evil POS you worship can do no wrong.

Humans invented crucifixion. Humans also invented every torture method there is. God is not a torturer, nor is he responsible for anything that happens to you.

And who invented humans?

If I made sentient robots knowing they would go and kill a bunch of people, would I be at all responsible for those deaths?

If your nonsense was true, your god created humanity and is responsible for all the harm they have caused.
And as well as that harm, your god is responsible for all natural disasters and illnesses and so on.
Your god is responsible for all suffering, yet you ignore it all, because you are in an abusive relationship with your imagination, where you can't bring yourself to blame the evil POS you worship for anything bad.

Your god not being responsible works for atheists and those of other religions, that do not believe your god created this world or humans.

But secularists see life itself as torture, which is why they routiney have pets kiled and people, caiing it's euthanasia.

No, that would be the religious nuts, at least those that actually believe.
They see life as worthless, and don't care if people die as either they go to a better place or get what they deserve.

The secularists typically see lives as quite valuable.

Meanwhile, this man allowed himself to be tortured at the hands of humans.

So taking the propaganda route I see.
You mean this GOD, went and put on a show to con fools like you into thinking he gave a damn?

Proving that some atheists are actually Satanists.

How? Because I recognise it makes more sense for Jesus to be Satan than God?
That doesn't make me a Satanist, as I still discard it as fictitious BS.

5. God actually is Jesus.

This only makes sense if God is not in control, or if it is propaganda.
The first is effectively saying God is Satan, or a man, sacrificing himself to save us from whatever being is in control.

God travels with us, and God loves us, enough even to die for us.

Again, going with the propaganda route.
Just what was God "saving" us from" himself?
He killed himself so he could choose not to torture people in hell?
He didn't need to kill himself for that.

And he didn't even have the decency to stay dead. Instead he was running around around 1.5 days later, being even more powerful.

Again, it makes no sense.
What does make sense is if it is propaganda to con fools like you into thinking God gives a damn about you as anything more than a plaything.

You are correct, there are no sideways people. Because this entire theory is nonsense.

Your theory is nonsense.
Your theory of some magical universal down for a RE.

In reality, Earth is round and there is no universal down.

It is a godless view of Earth that is intended to belittle and enslave humans

As opposed to your delusional BS, reducing humans to the playing thing of an evil POS.

Just what is enslaving me? I am free.
You are the one enslaved by your evil tyrant.

We humans are pretty damned important

And more pathetic reasons to reject reality. You can't handle not being the centre of the universe, so you cling to a pathetic fantasy.

the idea of heliocentric RE is to mention an Earth unsuitable for life

Why?
This Earth we live on is quite suitable for life.

rather than one perfectly designed for life.

The universe we live in is not one perfectly designed for life, at least not human life.
Even if we cling to your fantasy of a FE.
Large portions of this world are water, which humans can't live on. Large regions of the land are inhospitable due to heat or cold.

People who have made games have made worlds vastly better than this. Your god is truly pathetic if this was the best it could come up with.

The amount of motion alone that the Earth supposedly travels would be enough to shatter our internal organs.

How?
Our internal organs would be destroyed by forces being transmitted through them. That doesn't occur from the motion of Earth.
Again, you are spouting garbage to pretend there is a problem when there is none.
Stop just spouting such utter garbage and instead try to justify it.

Hanging upside-down would give all of us bloodrush.

Good thing people can stand upright all over the globe, and they don't need to hang upside down.
Again, you are taking your fantasy of some magical universal down to attack a model where it simply doesn't exist.
Your fantasy has no bearing on reality.

The water of the Earth should lower to the southern hemisphere

Why?
Again, you are using the same BS fantasy.
Lower is towards the centre, not towards the south.

Why should all the water move to the southern hemisphere? Why not any other point on Earth? Why not towards the centre?

Any of these factors should kill us.

And they are all just a pathetic fantasy of yours, not reality.

If you still see God as a torturer, I can't tell you any good news. But there is alot that even I (among the most bored, depressed, and cynical people alive) can say is a blessing to this life. We're not being tortured.

I don't believe in your god. I don't think it exists, so I don't think it is torturing me.
But in the fairy tale of your cult, your god is an evil tyrant that tortures people and torments people to show off.
It is certainly not a good being and not worthy of worship, and no decent human being would worship it except out of ignorance, cowardice, brainwashing or stupidity.

Yes, yes, tell me how it's so much more virtuous to be mining carbon to turn it into nonbiodegradeable batteries that potetially create pollution in landfills vs burning.

No, impractical is impractical. Technology ony works when it is cheap enough to use. Srop the sunk cost and greater fool fallacies. Nobody is buying. It's too expensive now, until it's cheap, not an option. Nobody will pay $100k for a car, just for its battery.

Literally millions of BEV's are sold every year. And the increase in new sales will probably overtake ICE cars before the 2030's.
Why? Because everything you believe about BEV's are wrong.

You dont mine carbon to make batteries. You mine lithium, which is a one time thing for a car, vs pumping oil, which has to happen consistently to keep an ICE car alive.

And BEV are already beating ICE on price of ownership, thats one of the reasons why Tesla cant make cars fast enough for the demand and Ford is busy selling off huge parts of the old ICE business.

How about instead of telling me to do that, you do it yourself? (Cites passages)

So you are promoting abhorrent garbage.

That tortured people to show off, you say. Yes

Yes, or as it is put in the Bible, to make his wonders multiply.

Quote

Humans invented crucifixion. Humans also invented every torture method there is. God is not a torturer, nor is he responsible for anything that happens to you.

And who invented humans?

What is the very first myth about humans? Oh right, it's about how they choice to have free will. "Knowing good and evil." Free will.

If your nonsense was true, your god created humanity and is responsible for all the harm they have caused.

Quote

But secularists see life itself as torture, which is why they routiney have pets kiled and people, caiing it's euthanasia.

No, that would be the religious nuts, at least those that actually believe.
They see life as worthless, and don't care if people die as either they go to a better place or get what they deserve.

The secularists typically see lives as quite valuable.

Bullcrap. Secular countries are at the top of the list for euthanasia and even designing suicide rides.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_Coaster
No Christian would want this ride. It's developed in countries where "avoiding pain" is more sacred than life. Now, it is a hypothetical coaster, but only nihilistic atheism treats this as a good idea.

Quote

Proving that some atheists are actually Satanists.

How? Because I recognise it makes more sense for Jesus to be Satan than God?
That doesn't make me a Satanist, as I still discard it as fictitious BS.

Satan means accuser/adversary. Satanists are people who accuse God. I think that sums you up, does it not?


Just what is enslaving me? I am free.
You are the one enslaved by your evil tyrant.

You are a slave of other people. Tomorrow, some thug could point a gun at your head, and you would have to serve him our of fear. No belief in afterlife = terror and a desire to control others.

Quote

We humans are pretty damned important

And more pathetic reasons to reject reality. You can't handle not being the centre of the universe, so you cling to a pathetic fantasy.

See, this is what things look like at your end, you tell me how atheists value life so much, and when I tell you human life is important, you say I'm in a fantasy. Everything you said before was false.

Quote

the idea of heliocentric RE is to mention an Earth unsuitable for life

Why?
This Earth we live on is quite suitable for life.

Exactly. But nothing about a rapidly spinning heliocentric Earth with upside-down gravity in the south is conducive to life.

Quote

rather than one perfectly designed for life.

The universe we live in is not one perfectly designed for life, at least not human life.

You just said half a paragraph before that it was quite hospitable. Which is it?!?

The Earth has a number of conditions suited for life. Read up on the Goldilocks theory. Earth is "just right" not too close or too far from the sun, having a moon of the right size to block small asteroids, having a gas giant with high gravity to absorb most of the really threatening ones, all of this has given the Earth time to nurture life. Factor after factor why life exists, yet you tell me the universe isn't designed for life. But it appears to have gone out of its way to make it happen on one planet.

Quote

The amount of motion alone that the Earth supposedly travels would be enough to shatter our internal organs.

How?
Our internal organs would be destroyed by forces being transmitted through them. That doesn't occur from the motion of Earth.

So it doesn't occur from rotating 1000+ mph, orbiting 66000 mph, and trailing the sun at high speed around the galaxy? Meanwhile, a theme park ride goes only maybe 50 mph, and ppl have been known to get injured from leaning wrong. Even with rpms being different, you're doing alot of funny things with numbers here.

Quote

Hanging upside-down would give all of us bloodrush.

Good thing people can stand upright all over the globe, and they don't need to hang upside down.

Bloodrush isn't about standing upright. It's about solids and liquids not having the same pressure. In a plane, you can't take liquids in certain containers as they explode. This is because liquids and solids don't react uniformly to changes in pressure. They do warn or altitude sickness, but there should be an equatorial sickness, for people who constantly transition from north to middle to south.  I was south of the equator, no change in blood polarity.

Quote

The water of the Earth should lower to the southern hemisphere

Why?
Again, you are using the same BS fantasy.
Lower is towards the centre, not towards the south.

Quote

If you still see God as a torturer, I can't tell you any good news. But there is alot that even I (among the most bored, depressed, and cynical people alive) can say is a blessing to this life. We're not being tortured.

I don't believe in your god. I don't think it exists, so I don't think it is torturing me.
But in the fairy tale of your cult, your god is an evil tyrant that tortures people and torments people to show off.

Wow, uhhhh so, you declare at the one hand that you don't believe in this God while at theother you arbitrarily declare that he torments people to show off.

 "There's this man down the street that nobody has seen, but I tell you he rapes little kittens for fun." Either we are to believe in this man and your accusations of him, or are to believe  that since nobody has seen seen him, you made him up. This is a "have your cake and eat it too" paradox, you can't declare someone doesn't exist, and simultaneously accuse him. So which is it? Commit to telling us God isn't real, in which case he's no business of yours, or commit to hating God in which case you admit he exists. Make a choice.

Either you are an Misotheist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misotheism
Or you are an Atheist.

Water has a distinct behavior, rising under high pressure only to seep downward. Water extends from the highest point to the lowest point. But water isn't all in any place, including the center. We can clearly visit Brazil and stand right on the equator, walk up and down, and perceive that no adjustments are made for the water by its coasts. There is water everywhere from above near France to around Australia. It doesn't "gravitate" anywhere. In fact, if we are to say water is pushed down, what makes more sense? Water on the sides of a curved surface, pushed towards a center? Or water in a basin?
You know the answer, you're lying to yourself and us. Just like you're lying when you call God a torturer and then with the other hand deny he exists.

Get your facts straight.

try honestly answer - what's below the basin?

Bullcrap. Secular countries are at the top of the list for euthanasia and even designing suicide rides.

Do Not Resuscitate

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 03, 2022, 07:00:55 AM

Bullcrap. Secular countries are at the top of the list for euthanasia and even designing suicide rides.

Do Not Resuscitate

Literally the first question asked of me at my recent hospital stay.  Do you have a DNR?  This was a hospital with a big cross on the wall with Baptist in the name.  I'm in the South in the US too, that hospital was pretty much, not secular. 

try honestly answer - what's below the basin?

The underside of the Earth. Ask a stupid question...

The basin holds in rocks, metals, water, lava, and all manner of life.



We would assume outer space is below the Earth, correct?

But you can't honestly prove that, can you? For all any of us know, the Earth is suspended in a white void, and the "stars" are pinpricks showing this void. We can't prove that anything NASA tells us is the case is true, since space shuttles aren't exactly as a common as toasters. Nor do most of us have our own observatories.

I can honestly say (because unlike you, I've been honest) that I do not know what is below the basin.