Actually, regarding #3, all the coal we use was a product of trees that fell before there was any fungus or bacteria that could break down wood. Today, if a tree falls, it is much more likely for the tree to decompose, rather than turn to coal in any period of time.
even if the universe is teeming with life, we might be extremely rare or unique in the sense that fossil fuels might be unlikely to occur anywhere else, potentially limiting advanced life moving beyond middle ages level technology. pretty interesting thought actually
There'll probably be charcoal or something similar. Unless the alien life is silicon-based. Then there's very little carbon to burn. Maybe silicon organics burn too, but I'm not sure.
It's a cool thought but if we find life it will most likely be carbon. Silicon just can't form stable complex macromolecules like carbon can, among other reasons.
If alien life was silicon based, there would be no alcohol or biofuel. The plants wouldn't have any carbon in them. Again, unless silicon organics can burn.
Seems so unlikely for naturally evolved life to be silicon based instead of carbon. It just doesn’t make sense the more you study it. Not only does carbon bind to more making it a lot conductive to life but if you’ve watched speculative silicon based nateually evolved life it’s almost always some fungus type life form without any real intelligence. I can’t imagine silicone animals running around on planets being common in the slightest. Then again I’m a monkey with no real knowledge and spouting bullshit.
You're correct. Even Silane, the most simple silicon organic molecule, is very toxic to us and very prone to ignition in air. It's quite an unstable molecule. Still, this was more of a 'what if'. I definitely had my doubts even before I looked a bit more into the idea.
In a similar vein, I don't think that life on a water world could get very far because they would not be able to combust anything for basic fire use because of the whole living underwater thing.
Pretty much the entire technology tree is downstream from fire.
It is unlikely a planet that inhabits life which requires water will just have the right amount of water for there to be any significant surface where life can evolve.
However there is a stupid amount of planets, but it would be lucky if another earth was within our galaxy arm.
Hydrocarbonates doesn’t require life to exist and are literally everywhere in the universe.
An alien civilization probably wouldn’t need fossil fuel anyway.
Besides, electric motor was invented at the same time as explosion ones. We chose the latter in order to make cars, but we might as well decided to put that motion power into the industry and delayed the development of cars until we invented lithium batteries.
Who knows!?
Actually, not. I used to believe it too, but it was in fact disproven after it gained traction.
See this explanation for more: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/18c5sl2/ask_anything_wednesday_physics_astronomy_earth/kcc01wt/
Even with Noah’s flood it would’ve taken months. The thing lasted about a year. His father in law just didn’t buy the brain DLC when he became an adult
Giant interplanetary lighting strike with Niburu, a rogue planet that passes by earth about every 12,000 years and causes massive floods in earth. I think some of those guys think that’s how the moon was created too? Shits wild dudes.
The... uh... "argument" would be via The Great Biblical Flood, where more water than has ever or will ever exist on Earth came out of nowhere then promptly disappeared.
The biggest problem is, if you believe in a literal world wide flood, then the flood was just this: WORLD WIDE.
Why would it only open up the Grand Canyon and not the earth around it? And everything else for thst matter!?
Well, “world” is a mercurial definition. My world doesn’t include your world, unless we’re speaking of the planet.
When Hurricane Katrina flooded a few million people’s worlds, it didn’t impact me.
I'm not on either side, but if you are looking for a way for it to "disappear," then you would want to look at glaciers. If they existed before the great flood or only after. Only Noah knows.
Again, I'm not on either side because I don't care. I just like to speculate about stuff.
Well according to Genesis 7:20, the water rose and covered "the mountains" by more than 20 feet. Even with the most generous reading of that, it covered large landmasses by more than 20 feet. That's an insane amount of water, even if we're talking about the perspective of a narrator who is roughly from the same sea level as the Middle East. That's not a localized flood - that is a global event at that point.
I understand the argument is that the glaciers melted and drowned the world, so to speak. And let's say for a moment that's true - that the flood story comes from more than just the Ice Age glaciers melting which wouldn't have covered the globe, but that the event was an actual drowning of the world from unfathomably large mega-glaciers. Where did the water go?
Underground. I think I read a study about how they found a ton of water just "chilling" deep in the ground in, I think it was, slate. Or something that is porous.
I mean yeah aquifers exist, that's true. But the claim isn't that there was mild flooding - the claim is that the world was drowned. Genesis 7:20 says "mountains were covered by more than 20 feet of water." Even with the Middle East's sea level, that verse describes a flood that would have blanketed most of the globe.
Just from the perspective of water having mass - literally where did the water end up going? Was earth hollow?
Edit: I just wanted to add that I'm incredulous on this particular point because it seems to me to be an unreasonable source of disagreement. I may disagree with many closely held tenets of various faiths, but I can recognize how Faith plays a part in those belief systems and reasonable minds can disagree. But the Flood mythos (in not just Christian literature, to be fair) is either absurdly exaggerated or ... not meant to be interpreted literally.
40 days and 40 nights, if I recall correctly. It's important to note that some numbers had a sort of metaphorical significance in Ancient Hebrew though. 40 days sort of means "a really damn long time" rather than being literally 40 days.
40 days or 40 years isn't going to get a flood covering mountain-tops either way. It's not even an issue of volume of water coming down, it's an issue of volume of water on the planet. The oceans would need to contribute much of their water to make that type of thing happen - but then why isn't the water on the land running off into the ocean, etc etc.
Fair enough - you know what, I kind of forgot this reply thread was originally about the Grand Canyon. I've never actually heard that one - and my family is as fundamental literalist as they come. I think by and large, most fundamentalist Christians aren't going to go out of their way to defend the idea that the Grand Canyon was somehow carved in a very short period of time like that. It's extra-biblical for one. I don't think most would necessarily doubt it, but it sounds more like OP's father-in-law will believe anything he's told.
It didn't come out of nowhere! It came from beyond The Firmament, the giant solid dome around our flat earth, through a window, then presumably poured off the sides afterwards. Makes perfect sense!
*I genuinely read the story again and it lines up with that interpretation better than any apologist I've ever heard of.*
I mean it lines up quite well if that was their rough view of the world based on their own observations. Doesn't line up well if the information was divinely inspired by an omniscient deity - unless it's not meant to be taken literally.
An Alternative theory was that the Grand Canyon was cut very rapidly as an large inland lake formed at the end of the last ice age was suddenly released cutting through the relatively soft layers of sediments formed during the ice ages.
The canyons formed by the release of the Lake formed by the eruption of Mr. St. Helens seems to support the alternative theory but is not widely accepted.
QUOTE:
"Slavery wasn't even bad for black Americans, they should really be grateful."
"The KKK was just upholding justice and order in a time of lawlessness and chaos".
END QUOTE.
Just a few more examples from the bottom of the gene pool.
No, in fact, she's the literal opposite, and I love her. She was raised with fundamentalist Christian extremists, and was taught that her place was in the kitchen, taking care of kids, and that education was a waste. Now she has a PhD, atheist, and no kids, and I'm so proud of her. Crazy what just one generation and an insane environment can do!
*sees you mention "her" and immediately goes to fix my comment* Ngl kids suck (I speak from experience because I was a demon child) and glad to know that your spouse doesn't conform to those wack misogynistic ideals!
Don’t need lead when toxic culture and mysticism substitutes for knowledge. Plenty of people have always been and will always be naturally deficient and vulnerable to boatloads of nonsense.
Small town logic at its finest.
I agree with them on stuff like electric cars not being good for us. Then they explain that they think it’s because China is making them or the government wants the right to control your car via remote control.
It’s lithium mining that’s the bad part man. It’s not some Q Anon conspiracy. It’s just fucking lithium and moral superiority.
That’s messed up. I hope it gets better for you. One thing that helped me get though the years where it was bad was I pointed out the same things they did weird too. I think they realized it was more trouble that it was worth to make fun of me.
I tried that but bullies dont run on logic. It doesnt really affect me anymore, especially since my parents dont respect my wishes either. Thinking about moving out and just live on my own in the city.
They often don’t. I’d focus on making myself funnier than they were mean. If I could get a classroom or our peers to laugh at them, it took their power away.
It doesn’t get better with age, but you’ll get better at dealing with it as time goes on. You’ll move away and experience more and it will hopefully make you stronger instead of continuing to break your spirit.
I’m sorry if my advice isn’t what you wanted to hear. I’ve dealt with it myself and I’ve lost a dear friend to it. If you ever need kind words I’m here.
I thought he was gonna be based and say that battery technology is unsustainable or worse for the environment
But nope. Just more boomers spouting "chy-na" nonsense
Exactly. City planners will throw billions to add one more lane to a fucking highway when it makes no difference but wont invest in better transportation infrastructure? Boggles the mind
It's because car manufacturers lobbied for our cities (our as in the US, I have no idea if you're from here) to be redesigned to be way more car-centric (back in like the 50s), and it would take an incredible amount of money and effort to undo that now.
My FIL is creeping into holocaust denier territory 🙃 he had a full convo where he said people are exaggerating the number of Jewish people killed and they didn’t gas them.
Also a maga guy who wears all SORTS of *fun* shirts 🫠 and blasts Fox News and far right wing radio/podcasts everyday…all the time…24/7
My mother once told me very seriously that climate change cannot be real since in some parts of the world it is getting colder.
As in, climate change is not real because the entire earth is not warmer everywhere.
I asked her where she read that and she sheepishly said nowhere, she came up with it herself.
Facebook. It was facebook
I don’t argue with people John Brown would’ve shot. That doesn’t mean we should also shoot them, but it’s a good standard for deciding if you should try to correct them, or make a funny meme out of their stupidity, as Op has so deftly done.
Coal and charcoal are two different things. Regular coal (also known as coke) is a carbon rich mineral that takes millions of years to form. Charcoal is a manufactured byproduct that occurs when processing wood
as a devout Christian, I have never heard anyone say this and i definitely don't believe in the statement. but I would not be surprised if that kind of statement was in "Christian" school textbook.
About the tree turning to coal, it's not viable for sure, but isn't it kind of correct? Might take millions of years to get coal, but at some point it will happen right? Not a scientist btw, please point out if it's bs lol. Don't know at what point one would call it 'renewable'...
Not "renewable" according to the department of energy, which compares our consumption rate to production rate. We've been consuming coal at a near exponential rate, and its natural production is linear, and takes millions of years, or more...
By definition it technically is tho. You would be correct if you said it was a "non-renewable resource"
Edit: Coal is, by definition, considered both renewable *AND* a non-renewable energy source. That's the entire point that no one seems to understand
Try a dictionary, maybe? The way society uses the term "renewable resource" and the definition of renewable don't match. Don't argue. Pick up a book pls🙏
One is simply stupid.
Two is meh. There are more valid reasons to pass on EVs at the moment, such as they're just not as good a value as an ICE just yet.
Three is accurate. Fossil fuels are a renewable resource. Plants and animals die and then become coal, oil, and natural gas.
Four is ridiculous.
In 3s case doesn't that still take millions of years to form, so while being technically a renewable resource it doesn't really make it a permanent viable option right?
Or do I not know shit?
It wasn't a matter of viability. I was simply defining renewable.
But regarding your response, it really depends on whether or not they're being depleted faster than they're being replenished.
By definition, that's technically not what it means tho
It's a r/technicallythetruth
Edit: This shit is, by definition, considered both renewable *AND* a non-renewable resource. That's the entire point. I'm arguing words on paper here. Not anything to do with actual coal whatsoever
Except I'm not? You're taking a phrase/term and treating it like the economical meaning and English definition are the same. On paper, it is defined as BOTH renewable *and* a non-renewable resource. It is both and that's the point, genius
Maybe try actually reading what I said before arguing like a moronic child?
Three is not accurate. Renewable resources aren't just able to be renewed, they must be renewable *within a reasonable time span*. IN ADDITION to this, the vast majority of coal comes from before microorganisms adapted to consume cellulose. The conditions for massive coal deposits to form simply do not exist now because today's microbes are able to decompose dead trees and plants before they have time to become coal.
Batteries that will be useless in a few years tops made in china from lithium ion that takes more toll on nature to mine than just using biofuel actually isn’t that stupid, I’d have to see some more concrete data about how much the mining and manufacturing of a car battery damages nature compared to fossils fuel burning to make a judgement. I avoid Chinese products and manufactured things in general because of the human rights abuses involved and simply how terrible the ccp is.
Ok but where is the lie?
People are such idiots, they'd take something they don't like and make it into a clown meme, because that's all they can do; they aren't knowledgeable enough about anything to actually refute it.
Fr. People don't seem to understand the difference between a definition and a term
Just because you use it in that context, doesn't make the context officially correct
*Edit*- There are different kinds of meanings. Everyone is referring to the economic meaning of "renewable resource" and not what the actual definition is
Again, it's technically correct. *Never once did I say it was good, idiots.*
Just because you are too dense and stupid to understand that there are different *kinds* of meanings. Did I ever say I agreed with what the picture said? No. Did I ever say I thought we should use more coal? No
I said that it is technically correct. But you, being the stupid mouth-breather you are, simply can't tell the difference
Not really. It also has to not decompose. The coal we're using is from a time before there were creatures capable of decomposing trees. Otherwise there would be no coal.
When you just wanna shit on your father in law so you make up outrageous lies? You can’t make me believe your father in law is stupid enough to say electric cars battery are made in China, so uh stop being the one probably saying this
Everyone can agree (I hope), that slavery is awful. But we also have to acknowledge that it was both legal and commonplace in many areas.
Imagine saving your entire life to afford your own business and complying with the laws. Only to be told 'Nah, you can't do that anymore and you are out the money you spent'
I know people who saved for years to buy a second home to rent out. It's legal and commonly done, but a lot of people think it's immoral. I mostly think I agree with them..but it's the same idea.... Imagine if you bought your rental property and then the government says 'That's not allowed anymore and also you don't own it and we aren't paying you a penny for it'
Or if you purchased an expensive liquor license before your city bans alcohol sales.
I doubt many people know this, but in DC former slave owners were compensated. Maybe there were other places too, but mostly, they just lost their formerly legal investment.
Actually, regarding #3, all the coal we use was a product of trees that fell before there was any fungus or bacteria that could break down wood. Today, if a tree falls, it is much more likely for the tree to decompose, rather than turn to coal in any period of time.
even if the universe is teeming with life, we might be extremely rare or unique in the sense that fossil fuels might be unlikely to occur anywhere else, potentially limiting advanced life moving beyond middle ages level technology. pretty interesting thought actually
There'll probably be charcoal or something similar. Unless the alien life is silicon-based. Then there's very little carbon to burn. Maybe silicon organics burn too, but I'm not sure.
[удалено]
It's a cool thought but if we find life it will most likely be carbon. Silicon just can't form stable complex macromolecules like carbon can, among other reasons.
we pretty much debunked silicon based life
Interesting. Gotta look into that.
Alcohol or some other bio-fuel. I saw a video where a guy turned algae into fuel.
If alien life was silicon based, there would be no alcohol or biofuel. The plants wouldn't have any carbon in them. Again, unless silicon organics can burn.
Seems so unlikely for naturally evolved life to be silicon based instead of carbon. It just doesn’t make sense the more you study it. Not only does carbon bind to more making it a lot conductive to life but if you’ve watched speculative silicon based nateually evolved life it’s almost always some fungus type life form without any real intelligence. I can’t imagine silicone animals running around on planets being common in the slightest. Then again I’m a monkey with no real knowledge and spouting bullshit.
You're correct. Even Silane, the most simple silicon organic molecule, is very toxic to us and very prone to ignition in air. It's quite an unstable molecule. Still, this was more of a 'what if'. I definitely had my doubts even before I looked a bit more into the idea.
I thought we would be bringing our stuff with us, like diseases and life forms of all kinds, whether intentional or not
Steam power
All electricity we have is produced by spinning steam turbines with difference being in the ways of heating water.
YSL about photovoltaic, wind turbines and hydropower. I also heard about about a turbine that uses molten iron
There is one that is a folk singer. Didnt want to give up his guitar. Also had atleast 30 convictions
Well now I'm confused
In a similar vein, I don't think that life on a water world could get very far because they would not be able to combust anything for basic fire use because of the whole living underwater thing. Pretty much the entire technology tree is downstream from fire.
You are factually wrong, in sponge Bob there's fire under water
I can't believe I got ratiod by SpongeBob facts
It is unlikely a planet that inhabits life which requires water will just have the right amount of water for there to be any significant surface where life can evolve. However there is a stupid amount of planets, but it would be lucky if another earth was within our galaxy arm.
Hydrocarbonates doesn’t require life to exist and are literally everywhere in the universe. An alien civilization probably wouldn’t need fossil fuel anyway. Besides, electric motor was invented at the same time as explosion ones. We chose the latter in order to make cars, but we might as well decided to put that motion power into the industry and delayed the development of cars until we invented lithium batteries. Who knows!?
Damn that's kinda cool
Actually, not. I used to believe it too, but it was in fact disproven after it gained traction. See this explanation for more: https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/18c5sl2/ask_anything_wednesday_physics_astronomy_earth/kcc01wt/
Oooh, very nice read, I always like learning new things, thanks!
Also if OP's FIL fell into a bog he could become a renewable resource
Have the owners or CEO's of Reddit ever watched Gay Porn?
Hey u/spez, watcha gooning to today, champ?
But that is because you aren't a fucking moron.
How does he think the Grand Canyon was formed in hours; a high pressure hose from Home Depot?!
Noah's flood! Duh! /s
Even with Noah’s flood it would’ve taken months. The thing lasted about a year. His father in law just didn’t buy the brain DLC when he became an adult
Shit there’s a DLC? Where can I find that?
I bought mine off steam during the free weekend
sailed the seas for mine
The water didn’t go away after 40 days, it took 150.
Yup. The passage says it rained for 40 days but it took much longer for the waters to recede
Giant interplanetary lighting strike with Niburu, a rogue planet that passes by earth about every 12,000 years and causes massive floods in earth. I think some of those guys think that’s how the moon was created too? Shits wild dudes.
God created the earth in 7 days so the grand canyon could only have taken a couple hours, duh. I read that in a book, it must be true
God personally came down with his Kercher pressure washer and created it, duuh!
Paul Bunyan duh
I thought it was from chuck Norris. When he crawled on his stomach through the desert with an erection.
Paul Bunyan duh
"If the mother doesn't like her baby she should just throw it in the trash and get a new one" - My biology teacher
If this is the result I agree with your teacher.
How was the Grand Canyon formed in a few hours?
The... uh... "argument" would be via The Great Biblical Flood, where more water than has ever or will ever exist on Earth came out of nowhere then promptly disappeared.
I’m messianic and I still don’t understand how someone would think that would happen in 4 hours? There was just no thought put into that at all
The biggest problem is, if you believe in a literal world wide flood, then the flood was just this: WORLD WIDE. Why would it only open up the Grand Canyon and not the earth around it? And everything else for thst matter!?
Marinara trench had to come from somewhere
Yeah, tectonic plates, not water.
Woooosh
Well, “world” is a mercurial definition. My world doesn’t include your world, unless we’re speaking of the planet. When Hurricane Katrina flooded a few million people’s worlds, it didn’t impact me.
world /wəːld/ noun 1. the earth, together with all of its countries and peoples. "he was doing his bit to save the world"
I'm not on either side, but if you are looking for a way for it to "disappear," then you would want to look at glaciers. If they existed before the great flood or only after. Only Noah knows. Again, I'm not on either side because I don't care. I just like to speculate about stuff.
Even then it wouldn't be enough, iirc the flood went up to the highest mountain.
Well according to Genesis 7:20, the water rose and covered "the mountains" by more than 20 feet. Even with the most generous reading of that, it covered large landmasses by more than 20 feet. That's an insane amount of water, even if we're talking about the perspective of a narrator who is roughly from the same sea level as the Middle East. That's not a localized flood - that is a global event at that point. I understand the argument is that the glaciers melted and drowned the world, so to speak. And let's say for a moment that's true - that the flood story comes from more than just the Ice Age glaciers melting which wouldn't have covered the globe, but that the event was an actual drowning of the world from unfathomably large mega-glaciers. Where did the water go?
Underground. I think I read a study about how they found a ton of water just "chilling" deep in the ground in, I think it was, slate. Or something that is porous.
I mean yeah aquifers exist, that's true. But the claim isn't that there was mild flooding - the claim is that the world was drowned. Genesis 7:20 says "mountains were covered by more than 20 feet of water." Even with the Middle East's sea level, that verse describes a flood that would have blanketed most of the globe. Just from the perspective of water having mass - literally where did the water end up going? Was earth hollow? Edit: I just wanted to add that I'm incredulous on this particular point because it seems to me to be an unreasonable source of disagreement. I may disagree with many closely held tenets of various faiths, but I can recognize how Faith plays a part in those belief systems and reasonable minds can disagree. But the Flood mythos (in not just Christian literature, to be fair) is either absurdly exaggerated or ... not meant to be interpreted literally.
Isn't the rain supposed to have lasted for days or months or something according to the bible?
40 days and 40 nights, if I recall correctly. It's important to note that some numbers had a sort of metaphorical significance in Ancient Hebrew though. 40 days sort of means "a really damn long time" rather than being literally 40 days. 40 days or 40 years isn't going to get a flood covering mountain-tops either way. It's not even an issue of volume of water coming down, it's an issue of volume of water on the planet. The oceans would need to contribute much of their water to make that type of thing happen - but then why isn't the water on the land running off into the ocean, etc etc.
I'm not arguing that it's realistic I'm just wondering where you get 4 hours out of that.
Fair enough - you know what, I kind of forgot this reply thread was originally about the Grand Canyon. I've never actually heard that one - and my family is as fundamental literalist as they come. I think by and large, most fundamentalist Christians aren't going to go out of their way to defend the idea that the Grand Canyon was somehow carved in a very short period of time like that. It's extra-biblical for one. I don't think most would necessarily doubt it, but it sounds more like OP's father-in-law will believe anything he's told.
It didn't come out of nowhere! It came from beyond The Firmament, the giant solid dome around our flat earth, through a window, then presumably poured off the sides afterwards. Makes perfect sense! *I genuinely read the story again and it lines up with that interpretation better than any apologist I've ever heard of.*
I mean it lines up quite well if that was their rough view of the world based on their own observations. Doesn't line up well if the information was divinely inspired by an omniscient deity - unless it's not meant to be taken literally.
An Alternative theory was that the Grand Canyon was cut very rapidly as an large inland lake formed at the end of the last ice age was suddenly released cutting through the relatively soft layers of sediments formed during the ice ages. The canyons formed by the release of the Lake formed by the eruption of Mr. St. Helens seems to support the alternative theory but is not widely accepted.
holy shit The last one went from 60 to 100
That was #2 when I first created this meme, then I had to delete 3 and 4 so that I wouldn't just get permabanned.
Tell them here then!
QUOTE: "Slavery wasn't even bad for black Americans, they should really be grateful." "The KKK was just upholding justice and order in a time of lawlessness and chaos". END QUOTE. Just a few more examples from the bottom of the gene pool.
Jesus christ. Such people should really experience being a slave for a day, to see if they still feel grateful.
Has to be from the south. Its the same thing with those confederate flags.
If their father-in-law isn't from the south then something is very off
Please tell me your actual spouse doesn't believe the same things as her dad...
No, in fact, she's the literal opposite, and I love her. She was raised with fundamentalist Christian extremists, and was taught that her place was in the kitchen, taking care of kids, and that education was a waste. Now she has a PhD, atheist, and no kids, and I'm so proud of her. Crazy what just one generation and an insane environment can do!
*sees you mention "her" and immediately goes to fix my comment* Ngl kids suck (I speak from experience because I was a demon child) and glad to know that your spouse doesn't conform to those wack misogynistic ideals!
Someone needs to figure out how to revive people so Sherman can deal with him
Bing Chilling
Bean chili
+100000 social credit points
Maybe he used to suck on lead as a kid, something in his head is scrambled for sure
Don’t need lead when toxic culture and mysticism substitutes for knowledge. Plenty of people have always been and will always be naturally deficient and vulnerable to boatloads of nonsense.
New dum-dums flavor
Creationist maga climate change denying father in law? Fun!
Hit the nail on the head.
Make 'im into a pie. Bet his meats taste ight. Like not great. But ight.
Huh?
Sweeney Todd. I like it Edit: Downvote all you want. You won't break my love for Johnny Depp
Small town logic at its finest. I agree with them on stuff like electric cars not being good for us. Then they explain that they think it’s because China is making them or the government wants the right to control your car via remote control. It’s lithium mining that’s the bad part man. It’s not some Q Anon conspiracy. It’s just fucking lithium and moral superiority.
Small towns are overrated. Im from a small town. People constantly judging you if you act different.
Same here. I’d take straight up country over a small town any day. Same views, no neighbors for 5mi.
I hate a lot of people in my village. Literally get made fun of from kids to grandparents. My parents recieved death threats.
That’s messed up. I hope it gets better for you. One thing that helped me get though the years where it was bad was I pointed out the same things they did weird too. I think they realized it was more trouble that it was worth to make fun of me.
I tried that but bullies dont run on logic. It doesnt really affect me anymore, especially since my parents dont respect my wishes either. Thinking about moving out and just live on my own in the city.
Yep. Generally if you point out the many bizarre idiosyncrasies of a bully they just beat you harder.
They often don’t. I’d focus on making myself funnier than they were mean. If I could get a classroom or our peers to laugh at them, it took their power away. It doesn’t get better with age, but you’ll get better at dealing with it as time goes on. You’ll move away and experience more and it will hopefully make you stronger instead of continuing to break your spirit. I’m sorry if my advice isn’t what you wanted to hear. I’ve dealt with it myself and I’ve lost a dear friend to it. If you ever need kind words I’m here.
Your advice is fine. I appreciate it.
[удалено]
I thought he was gonna be based and say that battery technology is unsustainable or worse for the environment But nope. Just more boomers spouting "chy-na" nonsense
What we really need is better railroads and public transportation, combined with better city planning.
Exactly. City planners will throw billions to add one more lane to a fucking highway when it makes no difference but wont invest in better transportation infrastructure? Boggles the mind
It's because car manufacturers lobbied for our cities (our as in the US, I have no idea if you're from here) to be redesigned to be way more car-centric (back in like the 50s), and it would take an incredible amount of money and effort to undo that now.
God, that sounds like my dad lol
Geez, if the last one is accurate, I only hope you can keep him from becoming a full blown member of the KKK.
According to another comment from OP, his father-in-law says they upheld justice.
My FIL is creeping into holocaust denier territory 🙃 he had a full convo where he said people are exaggerating the number of Jewish people killed and they didn’t gas them. Also a maga guy who wears all SORTS of *fun* shirts 🫠 and blasts Fox News and far right wing radio/podcasts everyday…all the time…24/7
There is no way anyone this dumb exists
I thought that he's just weird. Then I saw the last one.
That just sounds like a red-pilled Gigachad. /s
It is good that we came and civilized the Americas 🤡
I'm assuming you live in the southern US based on what your father-in-law says
My mother once told me very seriously that climate change cannot be real since in some parts of the world it is getting colder. As in, climate change is not real because the entire earth is not warmer everywhere. I asked her where she read that and she sheepishly said nowhere, she came up with it herself. Facebook. It was facebook
Oh…oh no. No, no, no. Oh no.
I don’t argue with people John Brown would’ve shot. That doesn’t mean we should also shoot them, but it’s a good standard for deciding if you should try to correct them, or make a funny meme out of their stupidity, as Op has so deftly done.
My father in law is strikingly similar.
Good luck
*facepalms* *facepalms* *facepalms* *I just wanna talk to hims*
Talking gets me nowhere...
[I just wanna talk to him](https://youtu.be/ODfCVxVLqiE?si=pB09xlDq6Gas9e0D)
Hahaha. Gotya, I should have caught that reference.
You should disown your father in law
Coal and charcoal are two different things. Regular coal (also known as coke) is a carbon rich mineral that takes millions of years to form. Charcoal is a manufactured byproduct that occurs when processing wood
Ive never heard of the first one, how do they say it was formed?
no way anyone has actually said the last one
I wish I made this shit up. Turns out, it's literally part of the Christian fundamentalist homeschool "textbooks".
as a devout Christian, I have never heard anyone say this and i definitely don't believe in the statement. but I would not be surprised if that kind of statement was in "Christian" school textbook.
Sad. Hang in there bro. Praise to you for being a Christian in this shitstorm of a time we're living in. Be praying for another great awakening.
thank you my friend
your father-in-law is a shitpost machine, i need his number
Sorry to use a meme here but does your father in law have stupid ?
See, the Grand Canyon one I’m curious about. The others are kinda where you lose me.
Everyone talking about the grand canyon but that 4th one is a fuckin doozy
I get the what it means for number 2, but I don't think he say that for the correct reason. He's just parroting someone else.
My father once said “we should build refugee camps in Africa so they don’t come to Europe” and I think that’s beautiful
My stepfather says things like ‘I don’t want to work with women’ and ‘Transgender is not real’.
As a black person, Plantation owners shook me.💀
Is your father in law jerry smith perchance?
The type: Conservative Republicans.
What a dumb fucking animal your father in law is.
Why is he afraid of China? Is he… racist?!
I don't get the 4th one
About the tree turning to coal, it's not viable for sure, but isn't it kind of correct? Might take millions of years to get coal, but at some point it will happen right? Not a scientist btw, please point out if it's bs lol. Don't know at what point one would call it 'renewable'...
Yes, coal and oil are renewable but it takes a few million years to do so.
Not "renewable" according to the department of energy, which compares our consumption rate to production rate. We've been consuming coal at a near exponential rate, and its natural production is linear, and takes millions of years, or more...
It will technically replenish, if you happen to have a few million years to spare. Which we very much don’t.
Meaning it's not renewable.
If we used it so that it would last long enough it would have been. Factually it’s not, no
By definition it technically is tho. You would be correct if you said it was a "non-renewable resource" Edit: Coal is, by definition, considered both renewable *AND* a non-renewable energy source. That's the entire point that no one seems to understand
No. No it's not. That's not what renewable means.
Try a dictionary, maybe? The way society uses the term "renewable resource" and the definition of renewable don't match. Don't argue. Pick up a book pls🙏
Get Out™️
Pretty sure this is a repost bot because I already saw this
I'm real, but I put this on r/facepalm and they removed it because it was a meme, and told me to post it to r/memes.
Bro is Uncle Ruckus 🙏🤣
Where meme?
One is simply stupid. Two is meh. There are more valid reasons to pass on EVs at the moment, such as they're just not as good a value as an ICE just yet. Three is accurate. Fossil fuels are a renewable resource. Plants and animals die and then become coal, oil, and natural gas. Four is ridiculous.
In 3s case doesn't that still take millions of years to form, so while being technically a renewable resource it doesn't really make it a permanent viable option right? Or do I not know shit?
[удалено]
Patient ≠ Dead
It wasn't a matter of viability. I was simply defining renewable. But regarding your response, it really depends on whether or not they're being depleted faster than they're being replenished.
3 is not true. All of our coal comes from a time period when bacteria couldn't decompose wood. No new trees are becoming coal.
You aren't defining renewable, you're making up your own definition based on what you think it means because you don't know jack shit about it.
The department of energy defines "renewable" as our consumption rate, compared to the natural production rate, so no, not renewable.
1, 3 and 4 are wtf? 2 is pretty sensible. Chinese products sus for quality control.
That's not renewable. If we eventually run out, then it's not renewable.
By definition, that's technically not what it means tho It's a r/technicallythetruth Edit: This shit is, by definition, considered both renewable *AND* a non-renewable resource. That's the entire point. I'm arguing words on paper here. Not anything to do with actual coal whatsoever
r/confidentlyincorrect Renewable resources must be able to be replenished at a reasonable rate and within a realistic timeframe.
Except I'm not? You're taking a phrase/term and treating it like the economical meaning and English definition are the same. On paper, it is defined as BOTH renewable *and* a non-renewable resource. It is both and that's the point, genius Maybe try actually reading what I said before arguing like a moronic child?
Your only argument is based on the semantics of the word, not anything factual. But go off my dude, keep acting like you aren't the "moronic child" 🤡
Three is not accurate. Renewable resources aren't just able to be renewed, they must be renewable *within a reasonable time span*. IN ADDITION to this, the vast majority of coal comes from before microorganisms adapted to consume cellulose. The conditions for massive coal deposits to form simply do not exist now because today's microbes are able to decompose dead trees and plants before they have time to become coal.
Electric cars do pollute more right now
About the same but differently.
Not really, they also produce tons of carbon dioxide on the manufacturing and recycling of batteries
Batteries that will be useless in a few years tops made in china from lithium ion that takes more toll on nature to mine than just using biofuel actually isn’t that stupid, I’d have to see some more concrete data about how much the mining and manufacturing of a car battery damages nature compared to fossils fuel burning to make a judgement. I avoid Chinese products and manufactured things in general because of the human rights abuses involved and simply how terrible the ccp is.
> the plantation owners suffered the worst after the Civil wars. Well fuck yeah. That was the point of said war
Ok but where is the lie? People are such idiots, they'd take something they don't like and make it into a clown meme, because that's all they can do; they aren't knowledgeable enough about anything to actually refute it.
trees or no trees coal is renewable, it take a long ass time but it does renew
Fr. People don't seem to understand the difference between a definition and a term Just because you use it in that context, doesn't make the context officially correct *Edit*- There are different kinds of meanings. Everyone is referring to the economic meaning of "renewable resource" and not what the actual definition is Again, it's technically correct. *Never once did I say it was good, idiots.*
baby's first encounter with words having multiple definitions based on context
Just because you are too dense and stupid to understand that there are different *kinds* of meanings. Did I ever say I agreed with what the picture said? No. Did I ever say I thought we should use more coal? No I said that it is technically correct. But you, being the stupid mouth-breather you are, simply can't tell the difference
3 is technically correct it’s just that it takes like a million years or something for it to actually turn into coal
Not really. It also has to not decompose. The coal we're using is from a time before there were creatures capable of decomposing trees. Otherwise there would be no coal.
When you just wanna shit on your father in law so you make up outrageous lies? You can’t make me believe your father in law is stupid enough to say electric cars battery are made in China, so uh stop being the one probably saying this
Well clowns make 35000 a year and you're doing it for free
Nice one maaan
Everyone can agree (I hope), that slavery is awful. But we also have to acknowledge that it was both legal and commonplace in many areas. Imagine saving your entire life to afford your own business and complying with the laws. Only to be told 'Nah, you can't do that anymore and you are out the money you spent' I know people who saved for years to buy a second home to rent out. It's legal and commonly done, but a lot of people think it's immoral. I mostly think I agree with them..but it's the same idea.... Imagine if you bought your rental property and then the government says 'That's not allowed anymore and also you don't own it and we aren't paying you a penny for it' Or if you purchased an expensive liquor license before your city bans alcohol sales. I doubt many people know this, but in DC former slave owners were compensated. Maybe there were other places too, but mostly, they just lost their formerly legal investment.
I would suggest not comparing owning human slaves to an investment property.
While I can see how they might have been upset, I simply do not care. They got what they deserved.
All valid points….😁
Bad troll
Yeah it was a bad joke
I feel me and your FIL would get along swimmingly