Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

bluebison47 said:I mean, that would have to be some sort of absolute, goddamn coincidence, right? Like, just perfectly timed to look like the truth when it actually isn't. I guess.👍

It’s honestly like saying, oh, there was corruption at LA Galaxy forty years ago too, so how do you know it’s specifically Mamić at fault and not just the usual suspects being thieves and frauds? Maybe.🤣

Oh, please. Zdravko is a great guy—he earns all that money on his measly $1,500 salary. Are you just jealous? Besides, the man even recycles. Hello?

wiredrider9 said:And how do you even know if it's "natural" growth versus what we're seeing now? It's all just guesswork, man.

Right. About as natural as a Burmese python in Florida.

Matthew Young35 said:So, where did those Burmese pythons in Florida even come from?
LOL

Didn't people likely bring them there in the first place?

You're essentially contradicting yourself here.

EDIT:
I decided to dig a little deeper into this.
Pythons are apex predators in Florida, whereas they aren't in Burma.
Do you know why?
It’s because there aren't any large cats left to hunt them.
There used to be jaguars in the southern parts of the US that would hunt massive snakes like these.
Do you know when the jaguars disappeared from Florida?
Roughly 11,000 years ago.
Let's play a game of connect the dots: what else happened around the same time the Florida jaguars went extinct? The rise of human civilization, wouldn't you say?

Look, people definitely introduced them, but they didn't breed them; the population exploded because of a natural disaster. It's the same deal with mountain lions becoming a huge issue across the US—they need to be managed because they disrupt the rest of the population. Hunting certain predators is completely justified, and if you don't see how vital that is for maintaining an ecosystem, then fine, do you honestly think nature is just perfectly self-sustaining? The question of how many species humans have actually saved is a fascinating one that nobody ever bothers to ask.

Why did dinosaurs and thousands of other species go extinct? Humans? 🤦

wiredrider9 said:God, I see this all the time. These people can't even handle a damn grocery bag without making a mess, meanwhile, I always carry my own reusable cloth bag to the store.

People are just exhausting and incredibly selfish.

Noah Roberts46 said:Look, people definitely introduced them, but they didn't breed them; the population exploded because of a natural disaster. It's the same deal with mountain lions becoming a huge issue across the US—they need to be managed because they disrupt the rest of the population. Hunting certain predators is completely justified, and if you don't see how vital that is for maintaining an ecosystem, then fine, do you honestly think nature is just perfectly self-sustaining? The question of how many species humans have actually saved is a fascinating one that nobody ever bothers to ask.

Why did dinosaurs and thousands of other species go extinct? Humans? 🤦

You're just being stubborn.

Why did dinosaurs and a thousand other species go extinct? Humans? 🤦

It was meteors or supervolcanoes.
I haven't exactly seen a massive meteor smash into the Country lately, and I'm fairly certain lava hasn't swallowed all of Siberia.
People would have noticed.

This mass extinction is solely and exclusively the responsibility of humans.
You know it too, but it's just uncomfortable for you to admit you were wrong.

Noah Roberts46 said:Look, people definitely introduced them, but they didn't breed them; the population exploded because of a natural disaster. It's the same deal with mountain lions becoming a huge issue across the US—they need to be managed because they disrupt the rest of the population. Hunting certain predators is completely justified, and if you don't see how vital that is for maintaining an ecosystem, then fine, do you honestly think nature is just perfectly self-sustaining? The question of how many species humans have actually saved is a fascinating one that nobody ever bothers to ask.

Why did dinosaurs and thousands of other species go extinct? Humans? 🤦

You’re basically shifting the goalposts to a topic that nobody is even arguing about. Look, we all get it—controlled, strategic culling of certain non-protected species to maintain ecological balance isn't exactly a hot-button issue. It’s just basic management. What’s actually controversial is this:

So, I was just reading through this massive report from the United Nations—something that took over 450 scientists and diplomats three years to actually pull together—and the numbers are pretty grim. We’re looking at an 82% drop in wild mammal biomass. Just think about that for a second. On top of that, we’ve basically carved up half of our natural ecosystems, and there are roughly a million species currently staring down the barrel of extinction. And let’s be honest here: most of this is on us. It's the direct result of human activity. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? At what point do we realize we're effectively dismantling our own life support system?

It’s getting pretty grim out there, isn't it? We’re looking at a reality where two in five amphibian species are at risk of extinction, alongside about a third of our reef-building corals and nearly a third of other marine life. Now, when it comes to insects—the little guys actually doing the heavy lifting for plant pollination—the data is a bit fuzzier, but even the most cautious estimates suggest that at least one in ten are staring down extinction. In certain areas, their numbers haven't just dipped; they've completely cratered. And if you think this is just a sentimental issue for nature lovers, think again. From a purely cold, hard economic perspective, the damage is absolutely staggering. We're talking about pollinator loss putting upwards of $577 billion in crop output at risk. Toss in land degradation, which has already slashed the productivity of 23% of the world's land, and you start to see how much this actually costs us. It makes you wonder: at what point does the math finally catch up to the crisis?

I'm still waiting on that link. You can't just drop a hint and walk away like that, can you? Give me something to actually work with here.

Noah Roberts46 said:Look, people definitely introduced them, but they didn't breed them; the population exploded because of a natural disaster. It's the same deal with mountain lions becoming a huge issue across the US—they need to be managed because they disrupt the rest of the population. Hunting certain predators is completely justified, and if you don't see how vital that is for maintaining an ecosystem, then fine, do you honestly think nature is just perfectly self-sustaining? The question of how many species humans have actually saved is a fascinating one that nobody ever bothers to ask.

Why did dinosaurs and thousands of other species go extinct? Humans? 🤦

and wild hogs, which are nothing but pure trouble

Matthew Young35 said:You're just being stubborn.

Why did dinosaurs and a thousand other species go extinct? Humans? 🤦

It was meteors or supervolcanoes.
I haven't exactly seen a massive meteor smash into the Country lately, and I'm fairly certain lava hasn't swallowed all of Siberia.
People would have noticed.

This mass extinction is solely and exclusively the responsibility of humans.
You know it too, but it's just uncomfortable for you to admit you were wrong.

ENTIRELY AND EXCLUSIVELY? 🙏

Just curious where you even pulled that data from.

Noah Roberts46 said:Look, people definitely introduced them, but they didn't breed them; the population exploded because of a natural disaster. It's the same deal with mountain lions becoming a huge issue across the US—they need to be managed because they disrupt the rest of the population. Hunting certain predators is completely justified, and if you don't see how vital that is for maintaining an ecosystem, then fine, do you honestly think nature is just perfectly self-sustaining? The question of how many species humans have actually saved is a fascinating one that nobody ever bothers to ask.

Why did dinosaurs and thousands of other species go extinct? Humans? 🤦

What kind of "natural disaster" are we talking about here?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ida-180972534/

"In Miami, a center of the exotic pet trade, dealers used to import them from Southeast Asia by the tens of thousands. It is now illegal to import or purchase Burmese pythons in Florida. Probably, at some point, python owners who no longer wanted to care for them let them go in the Everglades.
By the mid-1990s, the pythons had established a breeding population."

Look, mountain lions have become a massive issue across the US too, and they need to be managed because they disrupt the rest of the local wildlife.

True, they've become such a significant problem that hunting them is actually prohibited in Florida, and they're even on the endangered species list.
🤦

Here is a small contribution to our discussion regarding endangered wildlife:

https://www.iucnredlist.org

Over 28,000 species currently face the threat of extinction.
That represents 27% of all assessed species.

I can already see it coming: you'll likely question my source, hunt for a more "relevant" one, and we'll just keep this cycle going indefinitely.

Matthew Young35 said:Here is a small contribution to our discussion regarding endangered wildlife:

https://www.iucnredlist.org

Over 28,000 species currently face the threat of extinction.
That represents 27% of all assessed species.

I can already see it coming: you'll likely question my source, hunt for a more "relevant" one, and we'll just keep this cycle going indefinitely.

And let me guess—you're gonna claim all 28,000 of those species are solely our fault?

wiredrider9 said:And let me guess—you're gonna claim all 28,000 of those species are solely our fault?

Probably not for every single one, but for most? Absolutely.

Unless you're suggesting some common culprit we missed—like a supervolcano burying half the planet in lava, an asteroid impact, or something equally catastrophic that slipped under our radar.

Matthew Young35 said:Probably not for every single one, but for most? Absolutely.

Unless you're suggesting some common culprit we missed—like a supervolcano burying half the planet in lava, an asteroid impact, or something equally catastrophic that slipped under our radar.

And look, just take a local spot like a park in San Francisco—if the trees there get sick (and I won't even go there regarding politics or the sheer lack of care from the city), if someone doesn't step up and deal with those dying trees, they’ll just spread until the whole forest is toast. Sure, maybe a brutal winter might stall things for a bit, but then what? The whole woods would be gone, animal habitats would vanish, and everything else follows suit. It's a mess.

wiredrider9 said:And look, just take a local spot like a park in San Francisco—if the trees there get sick (and I won't even go there regarding politics or the sheer lack of care from the city), if someone doesn't step up and deal with those dying trees, they’ll just spread until the whole forest is toast. Sure, maybe a brutal winter might stall things for a bit, but then what? The whole woods would be gone, animal habitats would vanish, and everything else follows suit. It's a mess.

We really need to alert the scientific community immediately! Apparently, humans can act both positively and negatively—now that's the groundbreaking discovery they've been missing all this time!

Ethanol—just another fuel source to debate while everything else falls apart. says:
She’s fallen into a downward spiral she likely won't ever escape—and since the kid is already dealing with autism, they basically had to go ahead and bleach her brain, too.

And now they’re using kids for propaganda too—Greta isn't the only one—because when you can't win on facts, you just lean into emotional manipulation.

Who’s actually pulling the strings behind Greta and the climate alarmists? It's worth looking into.

mah11:

Check out the link I posted—that’s exactly where you'll find the answer.

Anyone posting trash links like this when we're trying to have a real discussion on Offside Chat is getting a perm ban—and I'm dead serious.

Ashley Bailey6 said:Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has existed as long as the planet itself.

I believe human influence is minimal right now, if it even exists at all.

No sane person wants to pollute nature or destroy the resources that sustain us, but I'm not worried about it.
Humans evolve just like everything else. Technology will follow suit, giving us more while causing less pollution.

If mass pollution ever actually happens, people will start dying off. The strongest and most capable will survive, the Earth will reset itself, and everything will start over.

Maybe—maybe not.

The fact is, the Country warms up naturally, then cools down—it’s just a cycle that's been spinning for billions of years. No one actually knows what happens if we kick that process into overdrive, or if excessive heating prevents the cooling phase from kicking in when it should. Those are the things worth worrying about long-term—maybe in ten or twenty generations.

Then again, you look at how many cities today are basically unlivable because of air pollution—I remember being in Ottawa where I couldn't even crack a window at night without the smog hitting me like a wall. These are the kinds of issues that are going to hit humanity—and pretty much everything else on this planet—way sooner than people realize.

As for the debates happening here—if I went looking for discussions about the US presidential election right now, I wouldn't be surprised to find the global warming deniers siding with Trump. That pretty much says everything you need to know about them. ☕

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

The fallout—think massive coastal flooding and widespread crop failures—could trigger a wave of "eco-refugees," which, let's be honest, sounds like a recipe for total political mayhem, according to Noel Brown, the director of the New York Office of the U.N. Environment Programme, or UNEP.

Brown basically warned that we're looking at a ten-year window for governments to actually get a handle on the greenhouse effect before things spiral completely out of our control.

article from 1989.

Amy Nelson4 said:U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

The fallout—think massive coastal flooding and widespread crop failures—could trigger a wave of "eco-refugees," which, let's be honest, sounds like a recipe for total political mayhem, according to Noel Brown, the director of the New York Office of the U.N. Environment Programme, or UNEP.

Brown basically warned that we're looking at a ten-year window for governments to actually get a handle on the greenhouse effect before things spiral completely out of our control.

article from 1989.

"Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of 'eco-refugees,'"

And yet, here we are. It's happening.
What's Your Point

Matthew Young35 said:"Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of 'eco-refugees,'"

And yet, here we are. It's happening.
What's Your Point

They clearly can't read if they think this article is claiming all of this is going to happen back in 2000.

Matthew Young35 said:What kind of "natural disaster" are we talking about here?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...ida-180972534/

"In Miami, a center of the exotic pet trade, dealers used to import them from Southeast Asia by the tens of thousands. It is now illegal to import or purchase Burmese pythons in Florida. Probably, at some point, python owners who no longer wanted to care for them let them go in the Everglades.
By the mid-1990s, the pythons had established a breeding population."

Look, mountain lions have become a massive issue across the US too, and they need to be managed because they disrupt the rest of the local wildlife.

True, they've become such a significant problem that hunting them is actually prohibited in Florida, and they're even on the endangered species list.
🤦

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/burmese...bsn-originals/

Yeah, they’re such a massive issue that hunting them is actually banned in Florida, and they're on the endangered species list.
🤦

My bad, I mixed them up with another species. Look, there's no denying people absolutely screwed things up, especially back in the last century—I'm happy to admit that—but humans have also saved plenty of species from extinction recently. Human impact on an ecosystem isn't exclusively negative, which is clearly what you're suggesting. You seem to have no middle ground, and frankly, it's irritating.

ruggedjackal46 said:You’re basically shifting the goalposts to a topic that nobody is even arguing about. Look, we all get it—controlled, strategic culling of certain non-protected species to maintain ecological balance isn't exactly a hot-button issue. It’s just basic management. What’s actually controversial is this:

So, I was just reading through this massive report from the United Nations—something that took over 450 scientists and diplomats three years to actually pull together—and the numbers are pretty grim. We’re looking at an 82% drop in wild mammal biomass. Just think about that for a second. On top of that, we’ve basically carved up half of our natural ecosystems, and there are roughly a million species currently staring down the barrel of extinction. And let’s be honest here: most of this is on us. It's the direct result of human activity. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? At what point do we realize we're effectively dismantling our own life support system?

It’s getting pretty grim out there, isn't it? We’re looking at a reality where two in five amphibian species are at risk of extinction, alongside about a third of our reef-building corals and nearly a third of other marine life. Now, when it comes to insects—the little guys actually doing the heavy lifting for plant pollination—the data is a bit fuzzier, but even the most cautious estimates suggest that at least one in ten are staring down extinction. In certain areas, their numbers haven't just dipped; they've completely cratered. And if you think this is just a sentimental issue for nature lovers, think again. From a purely cold, hard economic perspective, the damage is absolutely staggering. We're talking about pollinator loss putting upwards of $577 billion in crop output at risk. Toss in land degradation, which has already slashed the productivity of 23% of the world's land, and you start to see how much this actually costs us. It makes you wonder: at what point does the math finally catch up to the crisis?

I'm still waiting on that link. You can't just drop a hint and walk away like that, can you? Give me something to actually work with here.

Someone is clearly disputing it. I never said people didn't mess up, nor did I say we aren't still making mistakes, but it is a cold hard fact that without those same people, certain species would have gone extinct long ago. It's just frustrating that some people refuse to see that. That's all I wrote.

Anthony Jackson2 said:

Ethanol—just another fuel source to debate while everything else falls apart. says:
She’s fallen into a downward spiral she likely won't ever escape—and since the kid is already dealing with autism, they basically had to go ahead and bleach her brain, too.

And now they’re using kids for propaganda too—Greta isn't the only one—because when you can't win on facts, you just lean into emotional manipulation.

Who’s actually pulling the strings behind Greta and the climate alarmists? It's worth looking into.

mah11:

Check out the link I posted—that’s exactly where you'll find the answer.

Anyone posting trash links like this when we're trying to have a real discussion on Offside Chat is getting a perm ban—and I'm dead serious.

Maybe—maybe not.

The fact is, the Country warms up naturally, then cools down—it’s just a cycle that's been spinning for billions of years. No one actually knows what happens if we kick that process into overdrive, or if excessive heating prevents the cooling phase from kicking in when it should. Those are the things worth worrying about long-term—maybe in ten or twenty generations.

Then again, you look at how many cities today are basically unlivable because of air pollution—I remember being in Ottawa where I couldn't even crack a window at night without the smog hitting me like a wall. These are the kinds of issues that are going to hit humanity—and pretty much everything else on this planet—way sooner than people realize.

As for the debates happening here—if I went looking for discussions about the US presidential election right now, I wouldn't be surprised to find the global warming deniers siding with Trump. That pretty much says everything you need to know about them. ☕

When you look at criminals like Clinton, socialists like Sanders who want to give prisoners the right to vote, and generally hysterical libtards, Trump looks like Octavian. ☕