17
BigDickTurner 17 points ago +17 / -0

Agreed. They've made a fraudulent offer, they cant force him to do jack shit.

1
BigDickTurner 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm not sure there's any law at all any more

2
BigDickTurner 2 points ago +2 / -0

If we were willing to take life imprisonment or death-by-cop as a reward, we could just go straight to executing them in public. No way I can see that isnt a suicide mission though, so I reckon theres very few takers. Maybe we can vote extra-hard in 2024...

4
BigDickTurner 4 points ago +4 / -0

Recent events have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is neither equal treatment under the law, nor the possibility to vote our way back to a just (or even sane) society. Globalist traitors have stolen control of elections and media, have thus usurped the people and their will, and are looting the nation and our children's futures.

Act accordingly, patriots.

God speed

1
BigDickTurner 1 point ago +1 / -0

I can't believe they'd put you away for a first offence. They'd give you a second chance and then rob you again. Persistent offender; it's an open and shut case.

1
BigDickTurner 1 point ago +1 / -0

Today's news from clown world: "Letting children live is murder!"

Slow learners: "Surely, this is the peak of clown world..."

Me (sneaking up behind the slow learners): "HONK HONK!"

1
BigDickTurner 1 point ago +2 / -1

Piers was always a backstabbing treacherous opportunistic two-faced liar.

0
BigDickTurner 0 points ago +1 / -1

It's several shills - or at least, one shill with several accounts - used to spread baseless hate of Salty across PDW recently.

Said shill ignores that Salty remains on youtube by keeping most of his content off youtube, and by deleting immediately the partial livestreams he does post.

Said shill believes there's no such thing as an 'ex' lefty, and was therefore not with us when ex-berniebros were required to disavow before receiving a coat when they came over circa 2016.

My scratch says said shill sucks at successful streaming.

0
BigDickTurner 0 points ago +1 / -1

I hope he has yet to read Hazlitt's 'Economics in One Lesson'. The alternative being that he has read it, but chose those priorities and actions despite having read it. Perhaps someone ought to send him a copy.

0
BigDickTurner 0 points ago +1 / -1

I think we can probably also agree that microplastics are bad, and that the number claimed to be present per cubic meter of air (p13) is obscene. Hopefully the study (Zhang et al) that produced that figure was conducted in China, and it's not quite as saturated across the USA/rest of the world. Either way, they'll spread, and my chief takeaway from this exchange is that airborne microplastics are a bigger issue than I'd previously realized. You ought take credit for that, despite our disagreement about the proportions and sources ovetall.

Pedes across .win correctly derided at the time the idea of strapping cheaply and urgently mass-produced plastic chinese crap to our faces. I'm not sure anyone guessed 'micro-plastic inhalation' as the specific reason, but there's definitely vindication here for those cautious supposed 'racists' who saw some kind of problem coming.

0
BigDickTurner 0 points ago +1 / -1

Just to clarify my position on masks, I think they are a total failure with respect to stopping viruses and undoubtedly add a level of detriment by using them.

Agreed

0
BigDickTurner 0 points ago +1 / -1

Im not disputing that more plastics are released after use, Im pointing out that the authors attribute this to the breakdown of the mask and not airborne collection.

Im not disputing that airborne collection occurs, im disputing that it forms the majority of the released particles and/or fibres.

Your quote confirms that of the colored bits, blue (from the mask breakdown) is predominant after use and that transparent (also from the mask) is predominant before use.

Your quote also states that amounts, but not proportions, of other colors increased after use. Unless the environment the mask was used in happened to contain the same mix of plastics that the production environment contained, it would be most likely that these are factory contaminants and not environmental collection in use.

Elsewhere, and quoted by me above, the authors mention atmospheric collection as a possibility. They do not conclude that atmospheric collection is the main source of either particles or fibres. They do state clearly in both the abstract and the conclusion that this source of both fibrous and particulate microplastics is the mask itself and the wear and damage thereto.

0
BigDickTurner 0 points ago +1 / -1

This part from p13 specifically addesses the other plastics in different colors than the mask itself. In short, they may come from the air or from the manufacturing process, and also the plastics from tge mask utself are predominant:

The results of polymer types also implied that, the microplastics released from the new DFMs were mainly their materials, PET and PP, while the use process increased the proportion of other types of polymers which might come from the airborne microplastics. However, the increasing proportion of blue microfibers still indicated that microplastics released from the masks themselves were still predominant.

I'm not disputing that microplastics in air (and seemingly everywhere else) are a serious issue; I am disputing that they're the primary type released by facemasks.

0
BigDickTurner 0 points ago +1 / -1

How come you won’t look at the actual number and the clarification of fibers vs particles?

I did, and I addressed that prior to your most recent reply. The quotes I took do specifically address that claim.

Please quote any part of the report that states directly that airborne collected particles are the majority of the plastixs released. Dont just say 'chart4', ive looked at that and explained why it supports my claims (as do the conclusion sion and abstract/intro).

NB: You have used *you're in place of *your at the start of your last paragraph, when mentioning my supposed failure to understand the study. Whilst I'm not claiming this invalidates your entire argument, I hope sincerely that the irony of misusing the versions of you're - whilst presuming your opponent is reading poorly - is not lost on you.

0
BigDickTurner 0 points ago +1 / -1

It's not me who's interpreted it incorrectly. The quotes I used are explicit, and clear, and the authors of the study did not make the claims you are making.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the additional microplastics released later on are collected from the air. In fact they are released from the mask itself after use and damage occur over time. The mask doesnt release much more later on because of airborne collection. The authors dscuss airborne collection using terms like 'may' or 'can'. It is not found to be a significant contributor. The non-mask-coloured plastics are attributed to contamination, not airborne collection.

When you say that the microplastics from the mask are 'a tiny fraction' of what's in the air and collected by the mask, this is not a conclusion of the study. It's your interpretation. The report states that, of the particles and fibres released from the mask, the majority of both are comprised of the clear and blue elements of the mask itself. It does not say anywhere, nor does it imply, that the majority of plastics released come from the air or are collected during use.

1
BigDickTurner 1 point ago +2 / -1

Valid questions that should not be ignored - regardless of our conclusions.

Putin is clearly corrupt, authoritarian, and dangerous. His part in the WEF thing is a monster of a red flag. Ukraine on the other hand does seem somehow to be worse.

Far too often, we realize too late that we've been had again, whether our new friend likes vodka or still likes beer. A man can dream though. A man can dream.

1
BigDickTurner 1 point ago +2 / -1

For the price of helping one 'refugee' in a western country, we could help twelve in their country of origin. That's if you want to help them, which I deny we are obliged to.

As a result, there is no legitimate argument for mass immigration/importation of refugees.

One could argue that by fooling the church into supporting the 'open borders' course of action, Satan has harmed the eleven 'un-helped' persons who remain in their shithole country.

He certainly seems to control today's 'church'.

0
BigDickTurner 0 points ago +1 / -1

It does not say that the collected particles are the larger part of the microplastics released. Fig 4 a/b shows the fibres released after use, after degredation, are the tallest bar on the graph and the largest part of the microplastic load released. P10: " Microplastics released from the DFMs were either fibrous or fragmentary. Fibers were predominant, accounting for more than 70% of the total released microplastics "

The primary color released is blue - which supports the mask being the source (p12: "Among colored microplastics, blue microplastics were predominant in both fibers and fragments, the proportion of blue microplastics in colored microplastics increased after use" p13: "The first two predominant colors in this study, transparent and blue, were also the same as of the main colors of the fabrics that DFMs were made of.").

The conclusion reads:

It was not only because of the large amount of fibers carried by the fabric material of the masks themselves, but also because of the process of use that would further promote the production and release of microplastics from the masks. In addition, the masks can act as collectors of airborne microplastics.

That final sentence states that in addition to the mask and its degredation, there can be collection of airborne particles. But that collection from air is not the primary mechanism. The first sentence says that the effects noted are due to the large amount of fibres in the mask, and the breakdown thereof.

This is consistent withthe abstract I originally quoted: " Most microplastics released from the face masks were medium size transparent polypropylene fibers originated from the non-woven fabrics"

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. If you think it says the opposite, quote your source directly instead of just making claims about what it says. The direct quotes I've included are literally the article you linked explicitly describing that the fibres from the masks themselves are the main microplastic that comes from their use.

4
BigDickTurner 4 points ago +5 / -1

Well...it's 'Freedom' vs 'Control', as it always was - but in current year that's the same as 'Patriots' vs 'Globalists'. I'm not just being difficult and pedantic; I find that approach is great for getting my proverbial foot in the door when trying to redpill classic liberals whise party abandoned them. They were always against state control, runaway corporate power, and corruption. They were always for the rights of the poor / lower classes, freedoms, and being left alone. Its easier to get them to denounce obvious evil than it is to get them to support any particular branch of change.

view more: Next ›