Is it something in the water?
-
Neither of us in in the UK afaik.
-
Neither of us in in the UK afaik.
You would be, if @loopback0's ancestors had not decided to ship your ancestors off to live somewhere else. ;)
-
-
My standard response:
-
Maybe for the 2020 vote, there should be a party who's main policy is to reduce idiocy in the UK, even if that means just shipping them off to another country. I'd vote for them.
The problem is, where? We've at least vaguely explored the whole surface of the Earth now, so there's no more new places that we can get to first (apart from those people who lived there all along) and start using before anyone else finds it.
I see two possibilities. Either we find the entrance to the Hollow Earth, and ship them down to blue-litten K'n-yan, red-litten Yoth, or N'kai, where there is no light at all. Or we ship them to Antarctica.
Now, you are about to point out the problems with those destinations, but never fear! International law prevents anyone living on Antarctica except for scientific expeditions, and the Earth probably isn't hollow. But you see. We will be conducting an experiment to find out, once and for all whether there is an entrance to the Hollow Earth in the heart of Antarctica. So it's fine to send people there for that purpose.
In all probability, they will freeze to death before they find it, which is fine. If they do find it, they must of course fully explore and document it before they can return to report their findings. So they'll get eaten or imprisoned or burned to a crisp or fall through the lowest layer of blocks into the void, or something. Which is also fine.
That leaves two contingencies: either they find nothing, or they find it and successfully document it and escape.
Well you see, I have thought of those as well. Since no amount of not finding a thing proves it doesn't exist, the only end-point of the experiment is if they successfully document it and escape (or the experiment collapses for lack of idiots, but that will a) never happen and b) also be fine). If they do explore it and escape, they will have proved their innocence - they can't be that stupid, or if they are, they're lucky enough to make up for it.
-
You have thought about this way too much...
-
:thatsthejoke.sdx:
-
We don't need another country to beat us at sport.
-
You have thought about this way too much...
It only took ten minutes to come up with the whole thing, and most of that was typing.
-
-
It only took ten minutes to come up with the whole thing, and most of that was typing.
Which about 9 minutes 58 seconds more than it took me.
-
-
-
It only took ten minutes
He's still not wrong.
The problem is, where? We've at least vaguely explored the whole surface of the Earth now, so there's no more new places that we can get to first
There's plenty of relatively uninhabited land at least here in the US. Most of it is uninhabitable, but I'm not sure if that's a bug or feature for @loopback0's plan.
-
How long would all that cheese last for?
Who cares? It's the scurvy that'll get them.
-
You're all thinking too small with your "land" talk. 70% of the surface of our planet is water. Ship the idiots off on ships and never allow them to land
-
Ship the idiots off on ships and never allow them to land
That's a good point. And if they're idiotic enough you can have a hole in the bottom with a stopper in it and a sign directing them to open the hole in stormy weather to let out any water that gets on board.
-
You're all thinking too small with your "
landplanet" talk.7099.99999999999999 % of thesurface of our planet is wateruniverse is empty space. Ship the idiots off on/use them as fuel for spaceships and never allow them to landback on Earth
<empty
-
You're all thinking too small with your "land" talk.
You're thinking too small with all your Terra talk! I already proposed Luna. With a hint at not providing any resources.
-
This probably works best. Somewhere like the US would find a way to give them back with interest. If it's Europe they'll just return in the back of a lorry.
-
-
Is it really when I was pointing out that I had already proposed an off earth location? Who is the ?
-
Is it really when I was pointing out that I had already proposed an off earth location? Who is the ?
I 'd your post
-
He's still not wrong.
Eh, it's what I do. I'm a writer.
Anyway if ten minutes is too much time to think about a new thought, sign me up for the spaceship.
-
@Jaloopa said:
You're all thinking too small with your "
landplanet" talk.7099.99999999999999 % of thesurface of our planet is wateruniverse is empty space. Ship the idiots off on/use them as fuel for spaceships and never allow them to landback on Earthsome say that it already happened
-
So, we send them back?
-
-
I already proposed Luna. With a hint at not providing any resources.
You're a harsh master.
-
Why this debate on using them as space fuel? Soylent Green, people.
-
Reaction mass is more valuable.
Also reduces the landing stage delta-v requirements.
-
Not quite as straight-up a as the papers make it out to be, perhaps; genuine mental health issues are involved.
Of course; she's a grown woman who still believes in fairytales and has imaginary friends.
Filed under: It's been a while since the last religious flamewar
-
@another_sam, @flabdablet, you guys want to weigh in on this?
The last time this was tried it didn't work out very well for the Australians of the time. Since that's now me, I do not approve.
-
The last time this was tried it didn't work out very well for the Australians of the time. Since that's now me, I do not approve.
Yeah, but back then there was a distinct technological discrepancy against the natives. I don't think you'd have that problem.
-
Yeah, but back then there was a distinct technological discrepancy against the natives. I don't think you'd have that problem.
The technological discrepancy wasn't the reason why England went ahead, it's the reason why they succeeded. The skin colour discrepancy is why England went ahead. There weren't any people here, just blacks.
The technological discrepancy still exists: The UK is a nuclear power and Australia is not because the UK fucked us over, using us for nuclear testing and not giving us the technology promised.
-
The technological discrepancy wasn't the reason why England went ahead,
I wasn't talking about that.
it's the reason why they succeeded.
That's what I was talking about.
The technological discrepancy still exists: The UK is a nuclear power and Australia is not because the UK fucked us over, using us for nuclear testing and not giving us the technology promised.
True, but if they nuke Australia, where would they send the stupid people in your scenario? No, they wouldn't resort to nukes for that reason, plus the fear of getting wiped out by other nuclear powers would make them hesitant. So while the actual technological discrepancy exists, there is no effective technological discrepancy.
-
if they nuke Australia
They did nuke Australia. Multiple times. We went along with it.
where would they send the stupid people in your scenario?
Still Australia, of course. Two reasons: 1. It's a huge sparsely populated country, even if you nuked every town with more than 10k people you can still easily find space that's safe to live in. 2. You're shipping them out never to return, why care about fallout?
-
Still Australia, of course. Two reasons: 1. It's a huge sparsely populated country, even if you nuked every town with more than 10k people you can still easily find space that's safe to live in. 2. You're shipping them out never to return, why care about fallout?
Good points, but you're still ignoring the knee-jerk reactions from other nuclear countries.
-
Maybe for the 2020 vote, there should be a party who's main policy is to reduce idiocy in the UK, even if that means just shipping them off to another country.
The US, surely?
No, thank you.
I heard they're already over capacity
This.
Tom Cruise & Dustin Hoffman
You're not helping.
There's plenty of relatively uninhabited land at least here in the US. Most of it is uninhabitable, but I'm not sure if that's a bug or feature for @loopback0's plan.
Dude, don't provide suggestions.
@loopback0 said:
I heard they're already over capacity
We are.See? This is a known phenomena. We don't want to discover what will happen if idiocy gets too concentrated...
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself. -Mark Twain
Oh wait...
SEE WHAT I MEAN?!?
-
This is a known phenomena.
phenomena
That's the plural. Not the singular.
You should have used phenomenon.
Filed under: Why do so many people get that wrong?!
-
phenomenon
Do doo de do do!
phenomenon
Do do do do!
phenomenon
Do doo de do do!
phenomenon
Do do do do!
-
-
You're not helping.
antiquarian:
He had misconceptions about ASD and wondered where he got those ideas. I told him where. How am I "not helping"? I think you have a case of bad reading comprehension.
-
The technological discrepancy still exists: The UK is a nuclear power and Australia is not because the UK fucked us over, using us for nuclear testing and not giving us the technology promised.
That's OK, you're under our nuclear umbrella. We won't let anyone nuke you. And get away with it.
-
-
FTFY
Are you conflating testing with an actual attack? Or implying that we'd cut off our supply of Fosters?
-
@abarker said:
if they nuke Australia
I'm leaving this (below)here , because, Discourse,it's not relevant - IJIJ
@abarker said:where would they send the stupid people in your scenario?
Still Australia, of course. ...
Mad Max is a documentary... <ponders>
Would the US protect Australia from a UK nuke attack?
From France... sure. But the UK....hmmm?
-
Would the US protect Australia from a UK nuke attack?
If we nuked Australia, who would we make fun of for being upside-down?
-
New Zealand
-
Or implying that we'd cut off our supply of Fosters?
Please, would you? We really don't need that swill round here…
-
@boomzilla said:
Or implying that we'd cut off our supply of Fosters?
Please, would you? We really don't need that swill round here…
You are aware it's 'brewed' in Manchester, right?