Comments

Feel the fart, be the fart.

Format the drive.

It is.

Alternatively, they might be very appreciative.

He didn't, he was walking away as she moved forward, briefly making it look like he was in her arms by forced perspective.

I may have missed something in the video but I don't remember him trying to place the blame on anyone other than the rapist.

Whilst I agree with you on a person changing their mind in the middle of the act, a single bad argument does not negate the validity of the other arguments. Sounds to me like you're just trying to find a reason not to consider an opposing point of view.

Except that carbon dating and such is actual falsifiable evidence, whereas the Bible is a guess with no traceable connection to the events it's claiming to be evidence for.

As I've said, several times, "electric cars with the same functionality as gasoline cars".

Really? Care to give an example of a BEV sedan with a 200+ mile range?

Except it's the only company that produces electric cars with the same functionality as gasoline cars.

So you're saying you can't provide any evidence for your blatantly biased baseless assertions?

[citation needed]

Can't exactly blame him for that though, the GOP has set out to block everything he's tried to do.

Again, I've not said anything about bias, I only pointed out how your grounds for claiming the statistics were misleading were not valid.

I never said the statistics can't be biased, I just pointed ou that the grounds your used to call them misleading were not valid.

When the evidence in favour of a certain position is overwhelming, the burden of proof is on the one trying to disprove it. The simple fact is the evidence is overwhelming that societies without guns are safer, all the cherry-picked data in the world won't change that.

1. I never said there were other electric car manufacturers, just that none had functionality comparable to a gasoline car.
2. So, what are these details about how it's not a reliable result? Why not post them instead of your rambling misunderstanding of statistics?
3. 1 in 1350 is the average for gasoline cars; the comparison is type of car, not brand.

1. I never said Tesla only made 6,333 cars, no idea where you got that from.
2. Market share definitely does matter in the scenario you suggested, where most gasoline cars are better and it's just one or to bad brands throwing off the average, I've covered this several times, how do you not understand this?
3. "...market share got nothing to do with the results. like wise, if there are 13,500 cars, 10,000 made by ford, none catch fire, 3,500 made by unknown manufacturer 10 catch fire, then combined, it's 1 in 1350 caught fire." You have simultaneously contradicted yourself and proved my point.
4. The comparison is not between brands but between types of car, gasoline vs. electric, as Tesla is the only available electric car with functionality comparable to a gasoline car, the comparison is valid.

1. The figures are widely available, look them up.
2. I never blamed guns, but it should be obvious to anyone how guns make killing people easier and so result in a higher homicide rate.
2. Even using your sources, the US still has a homicide rate 5 times that of the UK.
4. Texas' decrease in gun deaths occurred after the introduction of carry laws, yes arming everyone in a society filled with guns will slightly increase safety, but on average unarmed societies still have far lower homicide rates.
5. You have provided one study which indicates that increased gun ownership increased whilst murder rate decreased, a quick google search indicates that pretty much every other study indicates the opposite; more guns means more gun deaths.
6. America only comes 34th in murder rate due to third world countries, compared to other developed nations the US is one of, if not the, highest in murder rates.
7. Cherry picking much?

Market share definitely does matter in the scenario you suggest. If one brand makes ten times as many cars then the rate at which those cars catch fire will have ten times the effect on the combined average, because there are ten times as many of them out there. This is why, for a smaller brand to have the effect on the combined average you are suggesting, the rate at which their cars catch fire would have to be absurd, or at least impossible to cover up.

Which is why you're 40 times more likely to be killed with a gun in America than in Britain...

1. If you can't see how the market share affect the combined average then your knowledge of statistics is even worse than I thought.
2. 400 in 10,000 = 4 in 100 = 2 in 50. Your math is off, not mine.

You're still failing to take into account the market share of the brands; there's a reason the "big three" you referred to earlier are called "the big three". 1 in 10,000 for one brand and 9 in 10,000 for another does not work out to 1 in 2,000 when the latter makes up only 5% of the cars, to get the effect you're talking about it'd have to be 18 in 1,000, or approximately 1 in 50. If a brand was catching fire at that rate, it would be in the news and they'd go out of business.

You haven't given an example of basic mathematics; your arguments boils down to "what if gasoline cars are better an it's just a few brands throwing off the average", but when you take into account the market share of various brands, for a small number of smaller brands to throw off the average that much would require their cars to catch fire at an absurd rate which could not be kept out of the news. The only thing you've demonstrated is your own failure to understand how statistics work.

You're the one who claims the statistics are misleading, I've demonstrated your only argument to be absurd, but still you push that assertion.

But you're not looking at the market share, the rate really would have to be absurd if one or two brands are bringing down the average of all gasoline cars that much. If one or two or even three brands of car were catching fire that often it would make the news no matter how much money was thrown into PR.
Why do you have such a hard time believing that a form of car powered igniting a flammable liquid will catch fire more often?

And I then pointed out than, in order to achieve an average of 1 in 1350 across all gasoline cars based on only a few brands, those brands would have to catch fire at an absurd rate.

But you haven't given an example though, you just keep claiming the numbers are misleading.

In what universe is it misleading?

No, because the rate given is an average of all gasoline cars, in order for one or two brands to be throwing off the average as badly as you imply, pretty much every car that brand makes would have to burst into flames.

And he will look you in the eye as he tells you that their HAS been warming over the past 17 years and that sources claiming otherwise have done so on an obvious and deliberate cherry picking of data.

What? It doesn't matter how many manufacturers there are, 1 in 6333 will ALWAYS be less than 1 in 1350.

Or just the dog shit.

Because fat people are the last group it's socially acceptable to hate.

You got blood on your face, you big disgrace,
Wavin' your banner all over the place.

Yes, you care so little that you just HAD to post a comment saying so.

Heathen!

Soy milk, rice milk, almond milk. You have options but eating oreos on their own is not one.

Actually the time difference in the crash is insignificant, the energy of the crash is partially used up to crumple those parts of the car, meaning less energy is transmitted to the driver and passengers.