CDC Warns of Increasingly Aggressive Rodents Looking For New Food Sources (seattletimes.com) 189
New submitter Way Smarter Than You shares a report from The Seattle Times: Humans aren't the only ones hankering for the days they could dine out at their cities' restaurants: Some rats that miss feasting on the scraps are becoming increasingly brazen to find new food sources, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned Thursday. Amid stay-home restrictions set across the country to battle the spread of the novel coronavirus, many restaurants and cafes are closed or limited to takeout and delivery, and with the reduced sales, the restaurants' trash bins are no longer overflowing with scrumptious leftovers hoards of rodents subsisted on. Finding slimmer pickings than they used to, cities' critters are more aggressive, prompting CDC to issue guidance on how to deter them.
Since the start of the pandemic, there have been increased reports of rat cannibalism and infanticide in New York, as well as more rat complaints in residential areas -- including in Chicago -- as humans produce more food waste at home. Roving rat armies, including one caught on camera scavenging New Orleans' empty streets, are concerning to the CDC, which says rodents can carry disease. The CDC advises home and business owners to cover garbage cans, put bird and pet food out of reach and seal small holes rodents could access in buildings. If people follow established cleaning guidelines, they can avoid exposure to rodent-borne diseases, according to the agency.
Since the start of the pandemic, there have been increased reports of rat cannibalism and infanticide in New York, as well as more rat complaints in residential areas -- including in Chicago -- as humans produce more food waste at home. Roving rat armies, including one caught on camera scavenging New Orleans' empty streets, are concerning to the CDC, which says rodents can carry disease. The CDC advises home and business owners to cover garbage cans, put bird and pet food out of reach and seal small holes rodents could access in buildings. If people follow established cleaning guidelines, they can avoid exposure to rodent-borne diseases, according to the agency.
I'm more scared of the rats (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's smarter than a rat? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to use what they are used to eating in your traps. If you want to use peanut butter , you need to put some peanut butter out in non-threatening settings to get them used to it then it will work in the traps. We found that rats had made their way into our dog food so we set the traps with dog food. Worked a treat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I heard Gen Z don't even have any!
Re: Who's smarter than a rat? (Score:2)
Nut butter? Or nuts?
ROUS? (Score:3)
Rodents Of Unusual Size?
Re: (Score:2)
Urban rodentologist Bobby Corrigan foresaw increased reports of aggressive rodents when the pandemic began. He said with restaurants closing, rats would need to adapt to find new food sources. In late March, he put out a call to other pest experts like him to share what they find surveying their area.
Corrigan told The Post that a pest expert sent him a photo after a gruesome rat battle in Queens, New York: A nest of rats had left to scrounge for food at their usual city block of restaurants but turned on each other when they couldn’t find enough scraps, Corrigan believes. A pile of rat limbs on the sidewalk was all that remained.
Rodents of Unusual Savagery, perhaps, matched only in nature by a clamor of Karens in the tissue aisle at Krogers.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you checked Washington D.C.?
Re: (Score:2)
Food waste (Score:4, Interesting)
So, normally these rat armies are sustained by wasted food from restaurants in apparently poorly closed containers.
Similar stories I hear from farmers who can't sell all their produce. Normally restaurants and hotels buy it, and apparently waste a lot of it, because last I checked, minus a few corona deaths, we still have the same number of mouths to feed.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is the distribution system is based on payment for that distribution. Think of it as a supply chain. Now that supply chain has been broken in places and the alleged administration is not up to the task of putting in place even a cursory chain to bring the food to the people who need it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Administration? What you're describing is a job for the Legislature (you know, the people who write the laws). So, why hasn't the House (which is required to write ALL spending bills) bothered to, well, write such a Bill?
Especially since, once they write such a Bill, they can then blame the Senate if it doesn't work o
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
it's up to the legislature
No. Under the 10th Amendment, supply chains to provision rat armies are clearly left to the individual States. And to the People.
Re: (Score:3)
It's interesting where in the supply chain things go bad.
In the UK flour vanished from the shelves as people started cooking everything at home. And the flour producers had massive gluts of flour. The main problem is that under normal circumstances misty floor is purchased by commercial entities where it arrives in bags of 25kg or larger. Even switching to continuous 24 hr production, the 1kg bagging equipment cannot keep up with the demand and the lead time on that sort of thing is long at the best of time
Re: (Score:3)
I think there's that, and some level of regulation that requires food sold in stores to meet consumer packaging and labeling information.
What surprises me is why producers didn't get groceries to just start selling food service-sized packages with some basic label stuck to the outside of the bag that met the basic minimum labeling requirements.
I think "they" underestimated people's willingness to buy large quantities of basic staples, either for themselves or to split up among neighbors/friends/family. I d
Bulk Outlets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just in the UK. The same thing happened here. The five and ten pound sacks of flour vanished from the stores, as did yeast. What is really annoying is that north, northeast, and southeast of town are wheat fields. Tens of thousands of acres of wheat, and no flour.
South of town they grow potatoes, and the stores ran out of them too. So the farmers got together and had a potato giveaway. The usual buyers weren't buying, so at least they could get a charitable deduction.
Do they really sell flour in 1 kg ba
Re: (Score:2)
I’ll never cease to be amazed at people who propose government intervention for problems result from government intervention. However I’m appalled that people want all of that authority vested in a single person. The United States decides to do away with kings long ago.
Re:Food waste (Score:4, Interesting)
When I am shopping for food for myself, I will get nearly all the food that I will eat during the week, sometimes I will use leftovers to not waste food.
Restaurants don't have that luxury. If they give you a 1 kilogram of food, and you only eat 1/2 kilogram of food (still a lot) they will have to toss that extra food away. If they only served 1/2 kg of food, then people will not show up. Because if they are really hungry they may eat more.
Also the restaurants plan on having more food available then customers, as they don't want to run out. So say during lunch hour a burger joint will begin prepping and cooking 250 burgers, and during that time, they sell 225. the other 25 burgers will get tossed, as they wouldn't be up to the quality the restaurant want to have.
Food waste: Impatience (Score:2)
In other words people are impatient for their food to be cooked, and that fact is reflected in waste.
Re: (Score:2)
"during lunch hour a burger joint will begin prepping and cooking 250 burgers, and during that time, they sell 225. the other 25 burgers will get tossed, as they wouldn't be up to the quality the restaurant want to have."
Wendy's uses them to make chili. That's no excuse.
Re: (Score:2)
So fix the bin.
well obviously (Score:3)
...it IS the year of the rat, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
The original Rat Pack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You want a terrier (Score:2)
If this is a problem, what you should do is get a small terrier. Check the breed, but many were specially bred to search-and-destroy rodents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you're conflating curiosity at never having seen a rat with wanting
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rats are smart enough to pick the softer targets. If you've got a terrier, they'll pick someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
A rat may only be a few inches shorter than a terrier but the terrier will have 10-15 pounds on him. And canines.
If you want to find out how dogs (and minks) work together to take out rats, check out Joseph Carter the Mink Man [youtube.com].
Talk about urban sprawl! (Score:2)
there have been increased reports [...] in New York, as well as more rat complaints in residential areas -- including in Chicago
I know New York City is big, but I didn't realize it had grown large enough to count Chicago among its suburbs.
TL;DR DUPE: Twitter adds fact-check link (Score:2)
Nonsense (Score:2)
It has never been easier to harvest rat brains for your rodent brain beowulf cluster! They even take care of the killing for you, you need only recover their half-eaten bodies and extract the brains.
So true (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you've self-identified as a dolt. Very courageous of you.
Re: (Score:3)
When it comes to Us vs Them, Us will take president.
If a fly, a bee, or a spider is in my room, I will normally open a window and shoo it outside, where it belongs. If it is being aggressive towards me, damaging my property, I will kill it, and sometimes their whole nest.
I don't take joy in killing them (I actually feel a bit guilty), however if it Then vs Us, I will do my best to make sure My team is on the winning side.
I grew up on a farm, and I Raised Animals for Slaughter. I do eat meat, however I mak
Re: (Score:2)
The word you want is precedence. Although, for a moment I had hopes the insects were coming for Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, do better by them, so you don't end up, as most are insisting upon, being as disposable as every other animal."
So there is us.
"most are insisting upon, being as disposable as every other animal."
Who are insisting what, can you explain more? Most?
"you don't get to ignore the logically required implications of your own position"
I don't hold that position. What does 'as disposable as' mean?
Re: (Score:2)
To simplify, I'll summarize like this.
There is us, we, friends, community and family too.
These are spiritual values at base, not reducible to any material justification and certainly not justifiable by reference to naturalism alone.
You can alternately read my statement as saying there is no "us" that includes both those who acknowledge spiritual values, and those who deny them.
Re: (Score:2)
Friends are a spiritual value.
Fuck you're stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, soon dead physical automaton declares he meaningfully has "friends", which he also wants soon dead, because he needs to be a "subjectivist" ethics-free atheist.
Nope. You couldn't process the meaning of "friend".
Re: (Score:2)
You're completely obsessed with death. No wonder you have no friends.
Re: (Score:2)
I have plenty. And we'll still all be enjoying each others' company in 200 years and from there to forever. Too bad about you and your so-called "friends".
Just clearly state your position and its implications to them. You'll lose them (if they aren't fictional already) immediately. No need to wait for the inevitable.
Re: Rodents are DNA too (Score:3)
*Not an Apple-approved word, apparently. "Timmy to the rescue!" However, he needs to complete his superhero ensemble and his predecessor's black turtleneck clearly won't cut it; but a gingham dress would go absolutely perfectly with those glasses...
Re: Rodents are DNA too (Score:2)
Well, call it what you like, it's still inescapable logic. Which will be demonstrated when neither you nor the other user I asked for an argument as to why you have any greater importance than any other DNA permutation, like a rodent or a bug, have an answer, because none is possible in the context of the premise of naturalism.
That's a stupid question which has nothing to do with naturalism. Questions of value are inherently subjective and context dependant. To me (and, I suspect, to many others) the company of a pet rat would be more valuable than your company, simply because they're more pleasant and seem to be more intelligent. Which, again, has nothing to do with naturalism, but I'm sure it won't prevent you from railing on about your "inescapable logic".
Re: Rodents are DNA too (Score:2)
To me (and, I suspect, to many others) the company of a pet rat would be more valuable than your company, simply because they're more pleasant and seem to be more intelligent.
That may or may not be saying all that much but rats sure do make awesome pets, just gotta get 'em right when they're weaned and handle them a lot. ;)
Re: Rodents are DNA too (Score:2)
I had some. Yeah they're great. Just sucks that they seem to be very prone to tumours.
Re: Rodents are DNA too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same. Well, the rat/tumour thing anyway, not the UNM thing :) The tumor got so large that eventually she couldn't move around on her own any more and I had no choice but to put her down. Should have probably done it earlier tbh.
Re: Rodents are DNA too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I ... can't imagine that would ever have seemed like a good idea for an excuse, to me. But thanks for the tip!
Re: Rodents are DNA too (Score:2)
Re: Rodents are DNA too (Score:2)
No, it's an exactly precise question, which you cannot answer.
No, it isn't. It's the equivalent of saying "how do you, as a maxwellist, explain why chocolate is better than vanilla". It's a nonsensical question which makes it obvious that you don't actually understand what you're trying to talk about. Maxwells equation have nothing to do with how we judge the taste of ice cream. Naturalism has nothing to do with how we judge the value of life.
It isn't inherently subjective
Yes, it is. If you don't think that value is inherently subjective then you are a hardline communist. I can't think of an
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isn't. It's the equivalent of saying "how do you, as a maxwellist, explain why chocolate is better than vanilla". It's a nonsensical question which makes it obvious that you don't actually understand what you're trying to talk about. Maxwells equation have nothing to do with how we judge the taste of ice cream. Naturalism has nothing to do with how we judge the value of life.
Of course it does, by logical necessity. You must have -some characteristic- that differentiates yourself from any other animal. I have one. I have a soul. Your turn.
Your mind's integration process will demand logical consistency whether you want it or not. Hence, the growing popularity of vegarianism amongst our increasingly secular society. Of course. You have no choice but to be uncomfortable with eating animals. You say you are no different than them. To not act accordingly, is just to expand y
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it does, by logical necessity.
No, it doesn't. You repeating the words "logical necessity" over and over like some kind of retarded parrot does not change anything. Either explain why you think naturalism has to involve any kind of concept of value whatsoever, or give it up. You sound like a child just constantly saying "yes it does!".
You must have -some characteristic- that differentiates yourself from any other animal. I have one. I have a soul.
No you don't. You can claim that you have a soul, but that gets you nowhere. In order for that to be a valid argument you would have to:
1. Prove that a soul actually exists.
2. Prove that you have a s
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't. You repeating the words "logical necessity" over and over like some kind of retarded parrot does not change anything. Either explain why you think naturalism has to involve any kind of concept of value whatsoever, or give it up. You sound like a child just constantly saying "yes it does!".
The reason it is "logical necessity" is there is literally no way you can act otherwise, and you don't. Agree or not, you decide that clothes-wearing bipedal hominids take precedence over all other animals. You just have no reason why, other than your emulation of what you've culturally assimilated--that is, my position.
You've discovered someone who has some DNA in a pot, with onions. How do you feel you should react to that? Time to call the police, or not? Why, exactly? Shape of the DNA expression?
Re: (Score:2)
The reason it is "logical necessity" is there is literally no way you can act otherwise, and you don't.
Which is obviously bullshit, because I do. You're just making a claim for which you have zero evidence, and which is directly contradicted by my own example at a minimum. Ergo you are wrong.
Agree or not, you decide that clothes-wearing bipedal hominids take precedence over all other animals.
5 seconds ago you said that I don't, now you're saying that I do. Make up your mind.
You just have no reason why, other than your emulation of what you've culturally assimilated--that is, my position.
I have lots of reasons why. We haven't even gotten to the point where discussing my reasons makes any sense, because you keep saying stupid things which we have to address first. If you can wrap your mind around the fact that natural
Re: (Score:2)
Which is obviously bullshit, because I do. You're just making a claim for which you have zero evidence, and which is directly contradicted by my own example at a minimum. Ergo you are wrong.
What example? You just asserted as pure abstraction that your actions are "subjective". Well, again, you don't behave that way, or it would be you who would be in jail, quite quickly. Cognitively, your entire life, you concluded that these clothes-wearing biped were what is important, what you chose to support, chose to engage in relationships with, etc., etc. It has been automatic for you, your entire life, that people are more important than rabbits or bugs. You just are denying it now, to support yo
Re: (Score:2)
What example?
Me!
You just asserted as pure abstraction that your actions are "subjective".
No. You keep telling me what I'm saying, and 99% of the time you're just making it up. This is another example of a thing I never said.
Well, again, you don't behave that way, or it would be you who would be in jail, quite quickly.
I would be in jail for behaving as if actions are subjective? That's insane. I DON'T believe that actions are subjective, but lots of people (many of them religious) do, and I haven't seen any of them get locked up for it. Again, just another thing you're making up.
Blah blah nihilistic position ... blah blah immoral in the way you want to ... blah blah couldn't "take it".
Again, you're just making shit up. I told you that nihilism is asinine, and you just keep banging on a
Re: (Score:2)
I leave you to it.
Tick tock for my software engineer responsibilities.
My time investment on a doomed immoral, ahem, "subjective" self-identifying animal has expired.
Tick tock for you, too, but in terms of when you lose in every way, on every level, forever.
Enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
Who the hell are you quoting, you maniac?
I ask you to be honest and stop lying about what I said ... and you come back with one quote ... of something I never said. Nice.
Thanks for the distraction, and congrats on tucking tail like a pro. I didn't expect an honest discussion and you amply lived up to that expectation.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quoting me, the participant in the conversation that is of long term relevance.
Amply.
Bye, and... bye.
Re: Rodents are DNA too (Score:2)
I'm quoting me
Another lie. You didn't say it either. You just can't help yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
"But, anyway, discussing that would be getting far "into the weeds", and you've already decided you prefer to end up rotting in them. Or the equivalent. Fair enough, I leave you to it."
You're falling apart mentally already. Your evolutionary prospects aren't looking good, even in the short term, much less the end result you can't escape.
I'll congratulate you in advance on whatever variant of "Oh yeah? You too!" comeback you manage, and think it changes anything for you.
Re: Rodents are DNA too (Score:2)
Me responding to you doesn't change anything at all for me. Your responses to me could possibly have changed something, had you decided to be honest instead of constantly lying. As it is all you've done is waste both of our time and reinforce the fact that you're both a liar and a fool (something which your initial comment strongly hinted at, but I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt).
At least you had the good sense to not mention your religion by name; I'm sure others of the same faith are r
Re: (Score:2)
I lied never. Everything is either your direct statements, or the unavoidable implications of your positions. This is the typical outcome of such debates, sheer desperation when my opponent loses every point, to claim everything I said was false and a lie.
But this doesn't matter, anyone can read the actual thread, and I'm not even talking to you primarily, only as a useful foil for a wider audience.
You, yourself, are a self-identifying soon to be dead animal (ironically, primarily, because Linnaeus the th
Re: (Score:2)
I've stated my position clearly, multiple times. Judging by the fact that you keep lying about what I said I can only conclude that you don't care about what my position is, and are willing to tell whatever lie you need to in order to sell your religious snake oil to others. It's incredibly sad that you believe you're coming out on top in this discussion when even other theists will read your lies and hang their heads in shame.
I read the whole thread. That was painful. Can't imagine why you wasted so much time on him. Thomas Aquinas he ain't.
Re: (Score:2)
I lied never.
I've directly documented at least a half dozen of your lies in the above discussion (and indirectly alluded to a half dozen more), and you haven't even objected to (let alone attempted to refute) any of it. But now you want to pretend not to be a liar. Good luck with that.
Everything is either your direct statements, or the unavoidable implications of your positions.
Another lie. Here is a clear example which doesn't fall into either of those categories. You said: "You just asserted as pure abstraction that your actions are 'subjective'". Nope, never said it. Find an example of me saying it. Yo
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, fine, reread any of my statement that are the direct and necessary implications of your statement, even if not your irrational and pointless demand that you be quoted -verbatim- for something to be representative of your position, and state your -actual position-, directly, on the issue at hand.
Are you a naturalist, yes or no?
Do you believe ethics to be subjective, yes or no?
Does subjectivism cause the opposite assertion to any other to be indistinguishably equally valid, yes or no?
Do you have a physi
Re: (Score:2)
I read the whole thread. That was painful. Can't imagine why you wasted so much time on him. Thomas Aquinas he ain't.
Boredom mostly. Isolation does strange things to the mind. Up until last week I was working my job as per normal but recently got transferred to a place that's not as "essential" so now I've found myself with much, much, much more free time.
No he ain't no Aquinas, but I was vaguely curious to see if he would at least attempt to engage with the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, what the hell. I'll give you another crack at it.
Are you a naturalist, yes or no?
Yes.
Do you believe ethics to be subjective, yes or no?
That is not a yes or no question. This is gonna go way over your head, but I'll say it anyway: We know that ethics are subjective because different people subscribe to different ethics. The valuation of ethics (like the valuation of anything else) is partly subjective, but with a lot of objective measurements which can be applied to them. That is to say, we can use objective measurements to determine which ethical values are better given the de
Re: (Score:2)
That is not a yes or no question. This is gonna go way over your head, but I'll say it anyway: We know that ethics are subjective because different people subscribe to different ethics. The valuation of ethics (like the valuation of anything else) is partly subjective, but with a lot of objective measurements which can be applied to them. That is to say, we can use objective measurements to determine which ethical values are better given the desire for a particular outcome. If you want any more detail than that, it's a massive discussion all on it's own.
No, we don't know it's subjective because people have different ethics. People have different notions of dark matter, too, that doesn't make it subjective. It is objective, the correct answer simply isn't known yet. There is no "mixture" of subjective and objective ethics that is viable, that's been proven by 2500 years of secular philosophy on ethics, for which there is still not the least consensus. Do you prefer Nietzsche's "mixture", or Hegel's "mixture"? What you prefer is, just deciding yourself
Re: (Score:2)
No, we don't know it's subjective because people have different ethics. People have different notions of dark matter, too, that doesn't make it subjective.
That would be an awesome objection, if dark matter depended on outcomes. It doesn't. What dark matter is has nothing to do with what we want. What our ethics are is deeply dependant on what outcomes we want. You can't compare ethics to dark matter any more than you could compare dark matter to, say, dating techniques.
There is no "mixture" of subjective and objective ethics that is viable, that's been proven by 2500 years of secular philosophy on ethics, for which there is still not the least consensus.
The lack of a consensus does not prove that there is no subjectivity to it. On the contrary, it tends to suggest (though certainly not prove, on it's own) that there probably is a subjecti
Re: (Score:2)
That would be an awesome objection, if dark matter depended on outcomes. It doesn't. What dark matter is has nothing to do with what we want. What our ethics are is deeply dependant on what outcomes we want. You can't compare ethics to dark matter any more than you could compare dark matter to, say, dating techniques.
Sure I can. They're directly epistemologically equivalent. There is a correct answer, in that case, we don't know what it is yet. The overall issue you have, is that for -anything-, when you say it is "subjective", you are saying it has no truth value, and cannot have one. It's mere opinion, and can be nothing more. That's your strategy for attempting to negate ethics entirely, because, again, you want to have no ethics at all, but still get credit for using the mere word "ethics", with absolutely noth
Re: (Score:2)
If you can explain to me how dark matter and dating techniques are "directly epistemologically equivalent", I'd love to hear it. I'm done letting you gish-gallop all over the place, so I'm not fisking you any more. One silly statement at a time.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I bother addressing your made-up comparison? I never said dark matter is like dating techniques, you did. Completely erroneously. There is no objective truth value to dating techniques, that is truly subjective. I never said that there is -nothing- that is subjective, I accurately stated that neither dark matter or ethics is subjective. If that weren't the common understanding, nobody would be trying to formulate formal ethics, because it would be pointless if no objective correctness can be
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, however it may seem, this is chess to me. I look to win the position as quickly as possible, so my opponent resigns and starts again with better skills. Preferably switching teams in the process. This isn't meeting any definition of "quick" or "efficient", so I'll leave it here.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I bother addressing your made-up comparison? I never said dark matter is like dating techniques, you did.
God you suck at this.
I said:
"What dark matter is has nothing to do with what we want. What our ethics are is deeply dependant on what outcomes we want. You can't compare ethics to dark matter any more than you could compare dark matter to, say, dating techniques."
and to that, you responded:
"Sure I can. They're directly epistemologically equivalent."
Now, I'm not a fucking mind reader. If you meant "ethics and dark matter are epistemologically equivalent, but dating techniques and dark matter aren't" then TH
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, however it may seem, this is chess to me. I look to win the position as quickly as possible, so my opponent resigns and starts again with better skills
You started off by knocking over your king and telling me that I'm playing checkers. Garry Kasparov you are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunate we need to end it with you transparently lying, but so be it. I'll have to play Kasparov a game in 200 years, and I'll try to remember you.
Probably won't though. Alas. I'll live.
Re: Rodents are DNA too (Score:2)
Unfortunate we need to end it with you transparently lying, but so be it. I'll have to play Kasparov a game in 200 years, and I'll try to remember you
Yeah, yeah, just like the 9/11 hijackers will be thinking of me while theyre screwing their 72 virgins in paradise.
Look, I'm glad that your fantasies give you comfort. I just hope that one day you'll find a way to reconcile with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
--Stephen Hawking
Your fake concern aside, don't worry about me. I'm already there.
Re: Rodents are DNA too (Score:2)
Another quote you clearly do not understand. I known you're not stupid enough to think that Hawking was religious, yet here you are, cherry picking his quotes in order to support your bullshit.
You also keep lying about leaving. You've already told me you have no interest in a reasonable discussion, but are just here for a "chess game". You keep saying you're gonna quit, and that you have more important things to do. Yet you always find a reason to come back and spew more nonsense. Just go the fuck away
Re: (Score:2)
No, I know clearly that Hawking declared himself atheist, and so decided to make himself irrelevant, at the end.
So, I'll just take what he decided to leave behind. And that statement is accurate, by a quite renowned secular scientist, and his atheist non sequitur and self-contradiction from there is irrelevant to that fact.
Just don't make another idiotic statement, and I will. I'll be relieving you of everything you ever get in your life, though, so there will have to be that "return", eventually. A litt
Re: Rodents are DNA too (Score:2)
Yes, the statement is very accurate. You're just too dull to understand it, and you insist on draping your religious baggage all over it. Because clearly the nonsense your preacher told you is far too complicated for Hawking to understand; you have to bring it in and attach it to his words.
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat that to someone nearby, and I'll have her repeat it to me later. It'll be a while, so better that I have a reminder.
Good night.
Re: (Score:2)
Awake or asleep, I suspect you'll be equally incoherent. Keep typing, let's find out!
Re: (Score:2)
Unsupported assertion.
Re: (Score:2)
Supported, and peer reviewed. [thelancet.com]
Re: Rodents are DNA too (Score:2)
lol. Hilarious. Clearly didn't read the paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Where?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you volunteering? Or are you just talking about the people you do not like.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect Godwin might have something to say about the first attempt. Misanthropist always seem to come out of the woodwork when examining the behavior of others, but scarce when it's their own.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of stupid argument is that?
It's a sound one. Rats can carry a range of diseases, not only viruses, but things like mites and scabies, too. You don't want microscopic insects sucking your blood, or drilling into your skin and laying their eggs in you, do you?
You may not like humanity and wish for the world to be a better place and that's ok, but if you were the last human on Earth you'd be in a lot more danger. Bears would come out of the woods and stalk you, wolfs and dogs would try to hunt you, and rodents would be all around you an
Re: (Score:2)
It has been happening. It's right there in the summary
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some Congressmen have already been infected. Sadly, to date, there were no cases of cannibalism reported from either party.
FUCK 2020 (Score:2)