Welll..if you live in Australia... red-back funnel web blue ring octopus typan tiger snake a box jelly fish stone fish the poisonous thing that lives in a shell that gets spicy when you pick it up a big shark just waiting for you to go swimming at bondi beach and a lot of other things not included in this list. (oh and vegemite)
am I the only one who is reassured by the thought of death, all the problems we face on earth eventually will be forgotten forever, earth will just be a new piece of space debris.
What's the point of reaching the age of 75 to die of cancer ? I wish to get a good ol' heart attack at the age of 50 and finish my life there, since the perspective to retire from work is almost impossible.
I actually enjoyed exploring the theme and the resources mentioned. So i made that comment as a jest that reflects the contradiction between the "darkness" of the theme and it's "interestingness": Discussing these matters is unexpectadly fun.
AfonsoSousa31 You can joke, but that is a legitimately valid question. At least, when it comes to people with intersex conditions or those who due to biology, or artificial meddling have unusual hormone levels. For instance, is a transgender woman (pleasem spare me the semantic arguments about whether they are 'real' women or not, it is after all irrelevant to the point), who has had surgery and taken hormones for a long time is biologically measurably different both from men and women. So, statistically, do their mortality rates follow the logic that applies to men, women, or something else entirely? And for that matter, when talking about men and women as distinct groups, how much of the differences in health and death rates are attributable to purely physiological differences, and which are behavioural? Anyway, unfortunately we will never have stats that cover small minority groups, as firstly it requires reliably tracking them as independent groups, and ensuring their data is never accidentally muddled with another group. And then, even if you do that reliably, the dataset would simply be too small to get reliable statistics from. if you try and collect data on a group that at best 1 in 2000 people is part of, and at worst less than in 30,000... Your sample size is going to be tiny, and thus unreliable. It gets worse when by it's nature the exact definitions of these groups aren't terribly reliable either. So in short, we probably will never have such data. Oh, and a 'feminazi' tag for a comment like that is rather poorly thought out, given that thr feminist subgroup that gave rise to that concept hates the idea of non-standard genders and transgenser and everything like that quite violently. The most you'll get out of someone that can actually be called a 'feminazi' (not just the strawman concept you probably have in your head), is the idea that gender is a social construct that doesn't exist at all, NOT the idea that there are a bunch of other ones. (just to be clear, it js basic feminist theory, as in, feminism explicitly established this distinction around the 1950's, that sex and gender are distinct things. - sex being biology, gender being a social construct that relates to, but is not determined by biology. That is the working definition of those terms feminism uses. By definition of that usage of the terms then, there can be any number of genders, because 'gender' is an artificial social construct. There are as many of those as people can agree on, and the number can change over time. Because it is an idea; a concept, not an aspect of biology. Sex on the other hand, is entirely a matter of biology. Biology is very messy though. But taking ALL of nature, there's really only 4 possible states. Male, female, ambiguous (eg, creatures that have both, or some poorly formed mixture of traits that is effectively an indeterminate sex), or neutral/asexual. - the last is impossible in humans by definition of what it means, but the ambiguous condition describes a whole bunch of things that you are forced to acknowledge once you realise and accept that biology is weird, messy and kinda prone to mistakes. Still, whether you can acknowledge this mess that biology creates or not is very similar to whether you are mentally mature enough to accept that in the real world good and evil are not truly things which exist, and that most things are somewhere inbetween. - seems lots of people are incapable of making that leap out of childish and simplistic duality based thinking though. Pity.)
According to the "Death Clock" I'll die on January 21st 2047.
Who's in for a huge Project X Party at my place on the 20th ?
Thank you ,
Loupis Canis you're welcome
Probably something stupid like choking on a chicken bone or sticking a fork in a toaster. :-(
What a Title...
Probably the boyfriend of my brunette neighbour... if you see what I mean.
oxygen deprivation in the brain.
White balance is off
shut up and marry me!
Greg Foot
Life.exe has stopped working
Hit by wannadie ransom-ware?
Have you tried turning it off and back on?
Welll..if you live in Australia...
red-back
funnel web
blue ring octopus
typan
tiger snake
a box jelly fish
stone fish
the poisonous thing that lives in a shell that gets spicy when you pick it up
a big shark just waiting for you to go swimming at bondi beach
and a lot of other things not included in this list.
(oh and vegemite)
Moral is if you live in Australia
Don't leave the house
dragon spirit(aka shadow999999) vegemite is horrendous first had it in Brisbane so bad ahaha
most likely myself :/
not if i kill him first
Flawaffles wow!
According to the "Death Clock" I'll die on January 21st 2047.
Sh*t, that's not so far...
I found 5 animations in the background distracting me from paying attention to what he's talking about. #ADHD
Probably all these youtubers doing giveaways for subs and recognition
watch all the edgy kids flock to the comments with suicide jokes
says the karkat avatar
Fun fact: Death is the most probable think to kill you.
hi
am I the only one who is reassured by the thought of death, all the problems we face on earth eventually will be forgotten forever, earth will just be a new piece of space debris.
What's the point of reaching the age of 75 to die of cancer ?
I wish to get a good ol' heart attack at the age of 50 and finish my life there, since the perspective to retire from work is almost impossible.
I wish I could die right now so I don't have to worry about dying anymore.
I know it sounds silly.
This is a cool topic to discuss. Macabre.
If you could choose to go out a certain way, What would you decide upon?
I believe it's either going to be a female spirit or demon that I have done absolutely nothing to.
Reading UA-cam Comments.
sixmiffedy so true... oh I've read them and replied... hi 👋
The thing most likely to kill you is living, 100% fatality rate right there
How does dementia kill you? I have never heard of this.
Time for watson to solve such big data messes....
I guess we'll never know what happens when we take steroids :P
The only reason humans will ever die of is themselves
What is going to kill you? - Death.
Super Hans with a stick
Everyday above ground is a good day
If you stay healthy and be careful on the road, you are going to die of cancer. The older you get, the more likely cancer is.
Is that true???
Anything can kill you
Crippling depression
Said Paranoia.......
lightning bolt
first
what are the numbers that comes up in the left corner?
Sources, check the description.
Trump's incompetence
TrainInVain You tried 😂
Or your own stupidity
This is fun!!!
Nuno Gonçalves thanks!... Altho interesting definition of fun 😝
I actually enjoyed exploring the theme and the resources mentioned.
So i made that comment as a jest that reflects the contradiction between the "darkness" of the theme and it's "interestingness": Discussing these matters is unexpectadly fun.
First. Now what will kill me is the youtube comment section you see.
WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER GENDERS? #feminazi #justajoke
AfonsoSousa31 so you think gender is a joke? You sexist monster.
Others?
There's only 2
count them 2
AfonsoSousa31 You can joke, but that is a legitimately valid question.
At least, when it comes to people with intersex conditions or those who due to biology, or artificial meddling have unusual hormone levels.
For instance, is a transgender woman (pleasem spare me the semantic arguments about whether they are 'real' women or not, it is after all irrelevant to the point), who has had surgery and taken hormones for a long time is biologically measurably different both from men and women.
So, statistically, do their mortality rates follow the logic that applies to men, women, or something else entirely?
And for that matter, when talking about men and women as distinct groups, how much of the differences in health and death rates are attributable to purely physiological differences, and which are behavioural?
Anyway, unfortunately we will never have stats that cover small minority groups, as firstly it requires reliably tracking them as independent groups, and ensuring their data is never accidentally muddled with another group.
And then, even if you do that reliably, the dataset would simply be too small to get reliable statistics from.
if you try and collect data on a group that at best 1 in 2000 people is part of, and at worst less than in 30,000... Your sample size is going to be tiny, and thus unreliable.
It gets worse when by it's nature the exact definitions of these groups aren't terribly reliable either.
So in short, we probably will never have such data.
Oh, and a 'feminazi' tag for a comment like that is rather poorly thought out, given that thr feminist subgroup that gave rise to that concept hates the idea of non-standard genders and transgenser and everything like that quite violently.
The most you'll get out of someone that can actually be called a 'feminazi' (not just the strawman concept you probably have in your head), is the idea that gender is a social construct that doesn't exist at all, NOT the idea that there are a bunch of other ones. (just to be clear, it js basic feminist theory, as in, feminism explicitly established this distinction around the 1950's, that sex and gender are distinct things. - sex being biology, gender being a social construct that relates to, but is not determined by biology. That is the working definition of those terms feminism uses. By definition of that usage of the terms then, there can be any number of genders, because 'gender' is an artificial social construct. There are as many of those as people can agree on, and the number can change over time. Because it is an idea; a concept, not an aspect of biology.
Sex on the other hand, is entirely a matter of biology. Biology is very messy though. But taking ALL of nature, there's really only 4 possible states. Male, female, ambiguous (eg, creatures that have both, or some poorly formed mixture of traits that is effectively an indeterminate sex), or neutral/asexual. - the last is impossible in humans by definition of what it means, but the ambiguous condition describes a whole bunch of things that you are forced to acknowledge once you realise and accept that biology is weird, messy and kinda prone to mistakes. Still, whether you can acknowledge this mess that biology creates or not is very similar to whether you are mentally mature enough to accept that in the real world good and evil are not truly things which exist, and that most things are somewhere inbetween. - seems lots of people are incapable of making that leap out of childish and simplistic duality based thinking though. Pity.)
well, you cant really count them. there are countless
Trump