Noliving's past comments

  • -1

    Noliving

    http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/10/opinion/oe-boot10 http://www.historynet.com/worth-the-cost-justificaton-of-iwo-jima-invasion.htm Except for Truk and later Guam, pretty much the whole of the Japanese held islands in the Pacific, particularly after 1944, were just marooned garrisons destined to starve to death as they could no longer be supplied.

    None of your links say that the strategy of island hoping as whole was an obscene waste of materials and life. All your links talk about is Iwo Jima and the fact that they, US military, had to come up with some PR for why they had bad intelligence on Japanese defenses on the island. That is hardly evidence that the island hopping campaign as a whole was wasteful.

    Posted in: Asia-Pacific militaries seek to develop amphibious skills

  • 1

    Noliving

    Expect for the massive rise in Colon Cancers, Obesity, CFS, diabetes and a host of other diseases.

    Gee I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that people eat a lot more today then they have at anytime in history and are living far longer.......

    There has never been a time in human history that food is this plentiful and cheap as it is today and humans on average have never lived as long either....

    Posted in: If you don't want your food genetically modified, tell nature to stop it.

  • 2

    Noliving

    revisionist WWII history shows that the whole island hopping campaign in the Pacific was an obscene waste of material and nearly suicidal for the U.S.

    Really? What source do you have for that?

    Also you do realize that the USMC is actually the cheapest of the branches and I just don't mean as a grand total but on a per capita basis. It would make more sense to get rid of the Army.

    Posted in: Asia-Pacific militaries seek to develop amphibious skills

  • 0

    Noliving

    A horrendous crime inflicting death and injury on innocent victims but no matter how horrendous the crime the death penalty can never be justified.

    Really? Lets say you have a convicted criminal who is a grave threat to the rest of society and due to whatever circumstances you do not have the facilities and or human resources to hold/contain this person adequately and as a result the prisoner's escape is highly likely. One could argue that in such a scenario the death penalty could very well be justified.

    Posted in: Boston Marathon bomber sentenced to death

  • 0

    Noliving

    Gee if only there had been a good guy with a gun present this horrible tragedy would have been avoided.

    Well seeing as good guys with guns were already on the scene at the time the incident started and no innocents were killed or wounded.......it would appear that good guys with guns did in fact prevent a massacre of innocent people.......

    Posted in: 9 dead in Texas shootout among rival biker gangs

  • 0

    Noliving

    I never claimed that old people are blocking employment, only that more employment will open up when the old people retire, for the reasons I gave.

    Yes you are, you are claiming that as the old people retire the jobs they held will then become available to the younger population. In other words the old people are blocking employment opportunities, or are limiting the number of employment opportunities, by staying in the work force longer and not giving up the jobs they hold.

    That argument, and the reasons you gave, have been studied and proven to not be true. Again what statistical evidence do you have to support your claim?

    Look at Post WWII - people had more money, so they had more kids. People have less money now, so they are having less kids. When people feel financially secure, they don't mind having more mouths to feed.

    Right, but that has nothing to do with old people staying in the workforce longer. Do you honestly think the reason the USA has had stagnant wages is because the baby boomer generation is aging?

    Posted in: Number of children in Japan falls to new low

  • 1

    Noliving

    Work is being done today. A large number of workers are nearing retirement. When they retire, one of two things will happen: 1) The work they are doing will done by someone else - someone who isn't retired and is therefore younger 2) The work they are doing will not be done anymore Granted not all work will be replaced. But much of it will, and someone is going to have to do it.

    And again what statistical study do you have to back up the claim that the old people are blocking the younger generation in employment opportunities? There is none.

    No, there are the same number of resources today that there has always been, and always will be, unless we start finding a way to pull resources from space and/or other planets. That's how a closed system works, and our planet is most definitely a closed system.

    Very good, now what you are purposely leaving out is that due to advancements in mining/extraction, automation in manufacturing, efficiency gains, etc. more of those resources are now easily accessible and affordable. Before they were stuck underground and we couldn't reach them, today more resources of this closed system are available when in decades past it was unpractical and or un-affordable to harvest them.

    That wasn't the claim I made was it.

    Yes it was, see the quote below:

    This is the natural order of things. We had too many kids, which created the population explosion that is now turning into the older generation. It's unsustainable, and so people naturally stop having kids, as they cannot afford them. When they can afford them again, they will start having kids again. It's not like the old people are going to live forever.

    Posted in: Number of children in Japan falls to new low

  • 2

    Noliving

    things will become more relaxed for the smaller younger generation, as they will have more employment opportunities,

    Ah yes this myth that older people are blocking employment opportunities for younger people. We already know that this isn't true considering that when more women went into the work place between world war 2 and today it had zero impact on the employment numbers of men.

    there will be more resources per person. When this happens, people will start to have more babies and we will see a flow in the opposite direction.

    There are more resources per person today than what there was in 2000 and 1990s and 1980s, etc and yet the population continues to decline.

    This is the natural order of things. We had too many kids, which created the population explosion that is now turning into the older generation. It's unsustainable, and so people naturally stop having kids, as they cannot afford them. When they can afford them again, they will start having kids again. It's not like the old people are going to live forever.

    Prove it, show that a majority of societies in human history in which it was to expensive to have children was caused by having to many old people and was rectified by having the old people just die out.

    Posted in: Number of children in Japan falls to new low

  • 2

    Noliving

    A recent poll I saw a few months ago the majority of Muslims here in USA would support Sharia law here in the U.S.! No thanks!!

    Which poll was that?

    Posted in: 2 gunmen killed outside Muhammad cartoon contest venue in Dallas

  • 1

    Noliving

    Objects fall at 9.8 meters per second/per second, or about 22 mph each second.

    That is only true in a vacuum, you have to factor in air resistance and once you do that you then need to factor in other things like density, aero dynamics, etc.

    Posted in: Man injured by metal part falling from roller coaster

  • 17

    Noliving

    Interesting how being a male porn star isn't on the list..............

    Posted in: Survey asks Japanese women what professions they don’t want to date

  • -1

    Noliving

    Oh just give the apology and get it over with.

    Posted in: Abe expresses remorse over WWII, but stops short of apology

  • 1

    Noliving

    The problem with the above statement is that the 'as long as' would never continue for that long. So it's really a meaningless statement.

    Is it? There is no indications really anywhere in the developed world that the population birth-rates of the natives is increasing or that it is going to increase to above two per woman anytime soon. The only developed nations that have population birth rates either at or above two per woman is almost entirely due to immigrants and immigrant families having children. The offspring of those immigrants tend to have less children and the offspring of the offspring have even less children.

    Can you tell us when Japan is going to have a birth rate of two or more per woman? I get the feeling you are just assuming that this demographic problem will eventually sort itself out on its own.

    Posted in: Japan's population falls for 4th straight year

  • -2

    Noliving

    One way or the other the population will stabilize.

    That is not a guarantee, as long as the birthrate is lower than two per woman the population will continue to decline until none exist.

    Posted in: Japan's population falls for 4th straight year

  • -4

    Noliving

    The truth of the matter is that you don't need metal knives, plastic knives can cut most food good enough. Cooking food at its most basic level just requires a heat source, it does not require cutting instruments. If we are to include preparation of food then to answer Nessie's question would be anything that requires meat seeing as you need to kill the animal and crossbows can be quite effective at killing a wide range of animals and the tip of the bolt can be used as a cutting instrument.....

    Posted in: Man questioned over crossbow attack on cyclist in Ibaraki

  • -7

    Noliving

    As an avid cook, I would like you to share your recipes for cooking using a crossbow.

    You don't need a metal knife to cook food, you can use plastic knives, anyways all you need to cook food is a heat source.

    Posted in: Man questioned over crossbow attack on cyclist in Ibaraki

  • 0

    Noliving

    That should be 0.01%, shouldn't it?

    Maybe 0.001%. Either way it is one ten thousandth of one percent.

    Yes. You have to balance the situations of children getting shot in the face with the overall benefits of guns. As of now, the numbers look pretty good, right?

    Ya the numbers look very good, for example more children between the ages of 5-14 die by bicycle accidents than by firearms. The truth of the matter is that in terms of numbers the only thing unusual about firearms deaths compared to other accidental deaths regarding children is that they are more sensational.

    So what would you do to decrease the overall number of these incidents?

    Well seeing as the number of incidents is decreasing already I don't see the need to provide any additional recommendations.

    Posted in: 3-year-old boy shoots, kills 1-year-old boy in Ohio

  • -1

    Noliving

    And, for others, their kids will get shot in the face. Or shot at school.

    Yes, so this gets to the question of balance. How many people have to use/own firearms for non-malicious reasons to outweigh the cost. Currently right now it is estimated that around 32-50% of American adults own a firearm, the current grand total death rate is 10 per 100,000 or 0.0001%, it is estimated that around ~20 per 100,000 are wounded by firearms. So the grand total casualty rate is 30 per 100,000 or 0.0003%.

    So being conservative on how many people own a firearm that means 32% of American adults own a firearm and that ownership results in 0.0003%, or three ten thousandths of one percent, of the American population being killed or wounded by firearms on an annual basis.

    If we are talking about children, in the age range of 0-14, firearms are not even in the top 15 causes of death in the USA.

    Grade school homicides of students on school grounds by all weapon types are around 11 per year in the USA and there are around 3 suicides. So the homicide rate of grade school children in the USA is 0.02 per 100,000, which is basically the same homicide rate of the UK grade school students murdered on school grounds in the UK. Keep in mind that if we are going by per capita rates that one student death in the UK is equal to five student deaths in the USA.

    Posted in: 3-year-old boy shoots, kills 1-year-old boy in Ohio

  • -2

    Noliving

    Until a 3-year old shoots a 1-year old in the face.

    Right, the good news is that the vast vast vast majority of gun owners that own them for recreation will be able to go their entire lives without having a single person killed or wounded.

    Guns don't kill. Yeah, right.

    Not all firearms are designed to kill people, for example the marlin model 60 is not designed to kill people and in fact I don't believe there is even a single record of the rifle killing a person in the USA.

    You realize when people talk about guns, they aren't talking about BB guns

    You do realize I used the term firearm, a BB gun isn't a firearm.

    Any argument used to justify gun ownership just shows that the person making the argument is dumb as fuk.

    No it does not.

    Posted in: 3-year-old boy shoots, kills 1-year-old boy in Ohio

  • -2

    Noliving

    Guns are not the pleasures of life, they are the bringers of death. That was a logic failure.

    For a lot of people firearms are exclusively used for recreation and those activities are part of the pleasures of life, plus not all firearms are designed to kill people nor does it mean that something that is designed to kill people or animals does not have other non-killing uses nor does it mean those non-killing uses will not be the predominant use of the product.

    Posted in: 3-year-old boy shoots, kills 1-year-old boy in Ohio

View all