Lurker > Steve Nick

https://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/24868/Status_of_Pledges.pdf/eef538d3-2987-4659-8c7c-5566ed6afd19


Check the chart on the second page.

The Green Climate Fund was basically, "money funneled to poorer countries". The USA pays 1/3rd of that if they accept the Paris Accord. China pays 0%.
---

This is my signature.

Yes, the dude is raping the girl.
---

This is my signature.

The show that was supposed to end in 2 seasons?

I enjoyed seasons 1-2 a lot, but seriously, it was done. I watched 1-2 eps of season 3 and gave up.
---

This is my signature.

Sanktu_Vyvorant posted...

Steve Nick posted...

Sanktu_Vyvorant posted...

Steve Nick posted...

Sanktu_Vyvorant posted...

Steve Nick posted...

Sanktu_Vyvorant posted...

Genuinely curious. All I've heard of are solutions that won't work, or even help. What are some serious solutions that you guys have to combating terrorism?

The main conservative solution presently seems to be, "limit the intake of terrorists into the country."

A lot of people haven't really agreed with that, though.

Yeah, that's one of the solutions that simply do not work. Terrorist will find other ways to get into the country, all that does is delay them

I mean, I'm guessing the number of them that are willing to swim across or jump the fence, is less than the amount that we're letting in legally.

No, I mean they'll find other ways to get into the country legally. It's really not a difficult thing to do

How are they gonna get in legally if you don't legally let them in?

By going to a country whose citizens we allow entry to

A prime example of this would be Turkey, a country that is renowned for helping terrorist do this exact thing

So you're saying we just ban immigration from Turkey then. By golly, you've done it!
---

This is my signature.

Sanktu_Vyvorant posted...

Steve Nick posted...

Sanktu_Vyvorant posted...

Steve Nick posted...

Sanktu_Vyvorant posted...

Genuinely curious. All I've heard of are solutions that won't work, or even help. What are some serious solutions that you guys have to combating terrorism?

The main conservative solution presently seems to be, "limit the intake of terrorists into the country."

A lot of people haven't really agreed with that, though.

Yeah, that's one of the solutions that simply do not work. Terrorist will find other ways to get into the country, all that does is delay them

I mean, I'm guessing the number of them that are willing to swim across or jump the fence, is less than the amount that we're letting in legally.

No, I mean they'll find other ways to get into the country legally. It's really not a difficult thing to do

How are they gonna get in legally if you don't legally let them in?
---

This is my signature.

Sanktu_Vyvorant posted...

Steve Nick posted...

Sanktu_Vyvorant posted...

Genuinely curious. All I've heard of are solutions that won't work, or even help. What are some serious solutions that you guys have to combating terrorism?

The main conservative solution presently seems to be, "limit the intake of terrorists into the country."

A lot of people haven't really agreed with that, though.

Yeah, that's one of the solutions that simply do not work. Terrorist will find other ways to get into the country, all that does is delay them

I mean, I'm guessing the number of them that are willing to swim across or jump the fence, is less than the amount that we're letting in legally.
---

This is my signature.

Sanktu_Vyvorant posted...

Genuinely curious. All I've heard of are solutions that won't work, or even help. What are some serious solutions that you guys have to combating terrorism?

The main conservative solution presently seems to be, "limit the intake of terrorists into the country."

A lot of people haven't really agreed with that, though.
---

This is my signature.

Probably means he was a decent dude.
---

This is my signature.

Uh, NYTIMES calls Mr. Wray a 'safe, mainstream' pick
---

This is my signature.

Blue_Inigo posted...

Steve Nick posted...

I was thinking about playing Pokemon Colosseum because it sounded like a cool concept, but then a review said it wasn't so great, so I didn't.

You fucked up pal. A Pokemon game with a clearly Mad Max inspired setting that lets you steal Pokemon? Badass.

I'll play it if I receive evidence that it is a good game.
---

This is my signature.

I want a biological female that has a BMI of less than 25 and no major physical deformities.
---

This is my signature.

I was thinking about playing Pokemon Colosseum because it sounded like a cool concept, but then a review said it wasn't so great, so I didn't.
---

This is my signature.

eston posted...

What I find funny about these topics is that it's basically the only time CE pretends to care about womens' sports

I mean, I don't go around caring about women's sports as a part of my daily life or anything, but I do hate injustice. And it does sincerely bother me that women are being robbed of their accomplishments by biological males who have an unfair advantage over them.

Do I have to be a women's track coach to have opinions on this issue according to you?
---

This is my signature.

gunplagirl posted...

thelovefist posted...

Why is anyone responding seriously to gunplagirl or hockeybub's trolling?

Defending trans women isn't trolling

You're not defending transwomen. You're just asserting things that aren't true.

Nobody here has attacked transwomen.
---

This is my signature.

ThePrinceFish posted...

Not sure how the topic stopped being about sports and started being about the ability to pick trans people out of a crowd

Somewhere around the time that one poster started asserting that transwomen are identical to CIS women.
---

This is my signature.

gunplagirl posted...

Steve Nick posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Steve Nick posted...

gunplagirl posted...

There's really no difference between cis or trans women

We all know this to be false. There is a difference.

For this subject of conversation specifically, we know that people who are born as men have advantages in sports.

If you want to talk outside of sports, then there's still a difference there too. Put a CIS woman next to a trans-woman and let people guess which is which. See what happens. Then tell me there's no difference.

"Put a tan white woman next to a mulatto and see if anyone can tell difference."

I really don't see what point you're trying to make here.

You really can't clock all trans women like you think you can. Not all trans women look alike. To even suggest they do is pretty clear discrimination.

I didn't say that all trans women look alike. I said that you can tell the difference between a biological female and a biological male. Some transgender women attempt to hide those differences, and do so quite well in some cases, but to say that they're indistinguishable from biological women is ridiculous.

Their faces, hair, voice, and body shape are all huge indicators of what their original gender is. It's exceptionally rare that someone can pass for the other gender.
---

This is my signature.

gunplagirl posted...

Steve Nick posted...

gunplagirl posted...

There's really no difference between cis or trans women

We all know this to be false. There is a difference.

For this subject of conversation specifically, we know that people who are born as men have advantages in sports.

If you want to talk outside of sports, then there's still a difference there too. Put a CIS woman next to a trans-woman and let people guess which is which. See what happens. Then tell me there's no difference.

"Put a tan white woman next to a mulatto and see if anyone can tell difference."

I really don't see what point you're trying to make here.
---

This is my signature.

gunplagirl posted...

There's really no difference between cis or trans women

We all know this to be false. There is a difference.

For this subject of conversation specifically, we know that people who are born as men have advantages in sports.

If you want to talk outside of sports, then there's still a difference there too. Put a CIS woman next to a trans-woman and let people guess which is which. See what happens. Then tell me there's no difference. People can tell if someone is transgender just by looking at them.
---

This is my signature.

Mystere posted...

If there are more than two genders, why are there trans men and trans women? Why do they pick one instead of trans just being it's own thing?

I believe it's to establish what they were, and where they want to go.

For the longest time I thought a transgender woman meant that it was a woman that was transgender(ie, wanted to be a man). Turns out it's the opposite.
---

This is my signature.

hockeybub89 posted...

Steve Nick posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/female-athletes-crushed-by-women-who-were-once-men/

There is more data towards their being a definite problem, then not.

In many of the cases they usually beat the previous record by a HUGE margin.

Examples without science or numbers (ie hormone levels) to validate it does not actually count as data. It still needs to be interpreted by people with regard to hormone levels and the like.

BTW bone density is moot because weight classes, how do they work.

I would rather trust my examples than your "i don't need sources."

Your FEELINGS are not more important then fairness

Sports aren't fair. If you are better, you win more. Michael Phelps was born naturally superior to everyone as a swimmer and largely destroyed everyone in his prime. I also think it is funny people suddenly care about women's sports.

The point of women's sports is to allow a biologically inferior demographic to participate in a fun activity.

If sports weren't segregated by gender, women would never get to play sports.

They are segregated by gender. This sprinter is of the same gender as her fellow competitors.

There are undoubtedly more trans female athletes competing out there than those who are winning state championships. They aren't all winning or even succeeding. I was also unaware the only way to have fun in an individual sport was by winning a state championship or that the majority cis women are somehow barred from competing.

They aren't of the same gender. One is female. One is a transgender female. They're not the same thing.

The reason transgenders aren't winning all of female competitions is simple. There aren't many trans people, so there's likely to be less total number of talented trans athletes. Take for example, a school of 2000 people. 1000 boys, 1000 girls. Let's say 1 in 1000, as a rough guess, is transgender. So, take one RANDOM boy from that school. Is he always going to be better than the most talented female athlete? Of course not. By sheer numbers, it's 1000 against 1. The male, or transgender female, if you prefer, is going to have a tremendous advantage, but still might be an inferior athlete.
---

This is my signature.

The reason we don't segregate by race is because there's no clearly defined differences between race, nor a way to properly divide divisions for sports teams based on race. Not all people of every race are made equal. There's people that are mixed race, etc. There are dominant athletes of all races that compete in fair competition against one another. It'd be impossible to regulate.

Women and men's sports are pretty easy to regulate though. You have two team's. Men's team, and women's team. If you're a man, you can play for the men's team. If you're a woman, you can play for the women's team. If you're something in between/unsure, then you play for the men's team, since women shouldn't be punished by unfair play.
---

This is my signature.

gunplagirl posted...

Shadow20201 posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Real girls? To start hormones a trans woman needs several letters from doctors and mental health professionals to verify their gender and that it I'd medically necessary to live as a woman.

There doesn't seem to be any indication that was the case for this person to compete, let alone live as one. Even so, I'm not bothered by this person competing and winning.

They are trans, that's reason enough. And no doctor would be able to give hormones to a patient under 18 (or over 18) without some serious proof their gender identity is genuine.

And every student has the right to compete, nondiscrimination laws are federally mandated even if Betsy devos wants to dance around that point from here to next week.

They should have the right to compete. On the men's team.
---

This is my signature.

Asherlee10 posted...

I really hope I can word this in a way without getting modded or coming across as racist.

Preface: I do not know that this is the case or not the case.

Do we have data that shows whether or not people of African descent are better athletes than other races? Or is that not a thing, only a perception?

You need more data than the NBA and NFL?
---

This is my signature.

hockeybub89 posted...

Steve Nick posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Steve Nick posted...

gunplagirl posted...

scorpion41 posted...

So he was too slow to compete with the boys(12.6 in the 100 and 26 in the 200 are awful times for boys sprinters) and he slapped a wig on so he could beat all the girls instead. What a joke that this was actually allowed.

Yes, because teenagers would put winning races over their ability to fit in or make friends or feel safe in public, possibly losing their family members care and housing as well.

It's not even about the transgender in this case.

It's about the real girls, who want to engage in real, fair competition. It's fucking ridiculous to make female athletes compete against biological males.

Real girls? To start hormones a trans woman needs several letters from doctors and mental health professionals to verify their gender and that it I'd medically necessary to live as a woman.

I don't know a single cis woman who has ever had to prove she's a woman. She just says she is and everyone accepts that.

Feelsies over realsies on your healsies.

That's because everyone can tell they're women with basic recognition, in addition to knowing the history of that person. They're accepted as women...because there is no doubt that they are women.

Why didn't you highlight her part about the requirements for hormones too? Everyone always glosses over the transition process. Doctors have to determine they are women before they can take hormones.

The reason I didn't highlight it is because I was not replying to that part. I highlighted the part that I was replying to. Basic stuff, man.
---

This is my signature.

hockeybub89 posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Dustin1280 posted...

http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/female-athletes-crushed-by-women-who-were-once-men/

There is more data towards their being a definite problem, then not.

In many of the cases they usually beat the previous record by a HUGE margin.

Examples without science or numbers (ie hormone levels) to validate it does not actually count as data. It still needs to be interpreted by people with regard to hormone levels and the like.

BTW bone density is moot because weight classes, how do they work.

I would rather trust my examples than your "i don't need sources."

Your FEELINGS are not more important then fairness

Sports aren't fair. If you are better, you win more. Michael Phelps was born naturally superior to everyone as a swimmer and largely destroyed everyone in his prime. I also think it is funny people suddenly care about women's sports.

The point of women's sports is to allow a biologically inferior demographic to participate in a fun activity.

If sports weren't segregated by gender, women would never get to play sports.
---

This is my signature.

gunplagirl posted...

Steve Nick posted...

gunplagirl posted...

scorpion41 posted...

So he was too slow to compete with the boys(12.6 in the 100 and 26 in the 200 are awful times for boys sprinters) and he slapped a wig on so he could beat all the girls instead. What a joke that this was actually allowed.

Yes, because teenagers would put winning races over their ability to fit in or make friends or feel safe in public, possibly losing their family members care and housing as well.

It's not even about the transgender in this case.

It's about the real girls, who want to engage in real, fair competition. It's fucking ridiculous to make female athletes compete against biological males.

Real girls? To start hormones a trans woman needs several letters from doctors and mental health professionals to verify their gender and that it I'd medically necessary to live as a woman.

I don't know a single cis woman who has ever had to prove she's a woman. She just says she is and everyone accepts that.

Feelsies over realsies on your healsies.

That's because everyone can tell they're women with basic recognition, in addition to knowing the history of that person. They're accepted as women...because there is no doubt that they are women.
---

This is my signature.

gunplagirl posted...

scorpion41 posted...

So he was too slow to compete with the boys(12.6 in the 100 and 26 in the 200 are awful times for boys sprinters) and he slapped a wig on so he could beat all the girls instead. What a joke that this was actually allowed.

Yes, because teenagers would put winning races over their ability to fit in or make friends or feel safe in public, possibly losing their family members care and housing as well.

It's not even about the transgender in this case.

It's about the real girls, who want to engage in real, fair competition. It's fucking ridiculous to make female athletes compete against biological males.
---

This is my signature.

joe40001 posted...

Steve Nick posted...

joe40001 posted...

Even though I'm not going to side with the lady, can we talk about the "article title" for a second:

'Hostile, Separatist and Crazy': Tucker Battles Supporter of 'Blacks-Only' Memorial Day Party

It starts with adjectives literally telling the reader how they should feel about content they are about to read, can we cut this shit out?

Really that whole article title is like "evil article titling 101"

'Hostile, Separatist and Crazy': Tells you how to feel
Tucker Battles: Calls it a battle implying hero vs villain. Does not call it a "debate" which would suggest some moral equal footing
Supporter of 'Blacks-Only' Memorial Day Party: This part is relatively fair, could theoretically be branded more kindly but that might be bias in the different direction.

Well, hostile and separatist are objective deductions from watching the video.

Crazy is a matter of opinion.

There are neutral connotation adjectives that would function just the same, and in reality you shouldn't include judgement adjectives in your article titles at all.

Serparatist defintion: a person who supports the separation of a particular group of people from a larger body on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or gender.

She is, by DEFINITION, a separatist. That's not opinion. It is objective fact, so it's fine to put it in a headline. Hostile, while more subjective, is, well, did you watch the video?
---

This is my signature.

joe40001 posted...

Even though I'm not going to side with the lady, can we talk about the "article title" for a second:

'Hostile, Separatist and Crazy': Tucker Battles Supporter of 'Blacks-Only' Memorial Day Party

It starts with adjectives literally telling the reader how they should feel about content they are about to read, can we cut this shit out?

Really that whole article title is like "evil article titling 101"

'Hostile, Separatist and Crazy': Tells you how to feel
Tucker Battles: Calls it a battle implying hero vs villain. Does not call it a "debate" which would suggest some moral equal footing
Supporter of 'Blacks-Only' Memorial Day Party: This part is relatively fair, could theoretically be branded more kindly but that might be bias in the different direction.

Well, hostile and separatist are objective deductions from watching the video.

Crazy is a matter of opinion.
---

This is my signature.

You also have to come back, so make that 18 hours.
---

This is my signature.

She said it was okay to exclude whites, because people have events that exclude children, because 'children ruin the events'. Then proceeded to call white people monsters that ruin everything.
---

This is my signature.

Yeah I noticed I did get an extra missionary.

Been very useful in converting everyone to Coptic.
---

This is my signature.

Some people don't like the newest addition of Ethiopia. They're referring to it as "Aggressive expansion". Such a hot buzzword.
---

This is my signature.

Socially, adults SHOULDN'T have sex with people younger than 18.

But legally, the age of consent should be 16. An adult having sex with a 16 year old is weird, but it's not worth throwing someone in jail for, especially considering that there could be sketchy circumstances surrounding it.

Basically, with an age of consent of 16, anyone who intends to follow the spirit of social rule(and only hook up with adults), will have basically a 0% chance of accidentally having sex with someone younger than the age of consent, if it's at 16.
---

This is my signature.

ROBANN_88 posted...

i was thinking of maybe doing an Aragon game

I played several campaigns as Castille recently. I'm new to EU4, so the Castille-Aragon relations are one of the few things I'm familiar with
---

This is my signature.

Right now my tech growth is pretty slow. I'm waiting for the Renaissance to spread to me. When it does, I'll become a Great Power.
---

This is my signature.

Not Ironman mode but I haven't reloaded from save any.




Marehan to my southeast(the blue country) is now my vassal. And I took a bunch of other territory. Close to becoming a great power.
---

This is my signature.

Funkdamental posted...

Not only that, but you're also the biggest troop contributor to current UN peacekeeping operations around the world.

I'm gonna pull out if Alodia and Mahlren don't start contributing a proportionate amount.
---

This is my signature.

Steve Nick posted...

Also, shoutout to Medri Bahri for their gains they made.

For anyone wondering what happened, there was a massive noble insurgency in Alodia, and they were at war with me at the same time(they didn't want me to conquer Kaffa). Alodia got crippled by rebels + a little help from me and Medhi Bahri went in and literally tripled their size.

Suits me, because Alodia had conquered Makuria earlier, so they were kind of too big for my liking.
---

This is my signature.

Virus731 posted...

Is that CK2?

EU4
---

This is my signature.

Also, shoutout to Medri Bahri for their gains they made.
---

This is my signature.

I have a real chance to become a Great Power as Ethiopia.

I'm currently allied with all of East Africa except for Adal, who I plan to absorb into my Empire soon.

If I'm able to consolidate east Africa, there will be no regional powers that can touch me, and I'll probably achieve Great Power status.
---

This is my signature.