WELL IF YOU DONT FUCKING LIKE IT YOU CAN JUST LEAVE!

I have it on good authority that one Ossett councillor is a .gs regular.

>>92609
Tell them to sort out the potholes on the roundabout at the town end of Kingsway.

>>92610
I came back to Beeston over the weekend and the mad mile roundabout was like driving through a trench.

You ought to see the state of the floor in front of my door. It's like I'm living in student accommodation again only instead of free shots they're trying to sell me on dubious questionnaires ranking a number of predefined options that just so happen to match the parties campaign platform.

I've finally bothered reading the material they've written.

THOSE FUCKING LEFTY LABOUR LOONIES WANT TO PULL DOWN GAWTHORPE MAUPOLE TO APPEASE BLM!

>>92613
>We learn by our mistakes
Not to take the man to task for one throwaway phrase, but I don't think anything is less true of the United Kingdom.

>>92614
He can't hear you. He's too busy on his quest FIGHTING NONSENSE.

>>92613
Well, they're talking about it. At least the Tory councils aren't entertaining such nonsense.

In the latest local election news:-

- Gawthorpe Maypole Committee (chairman: Labour's unsuccessful candidate in 2019) have issued a statement after receiving a "number of calls and messages from concerned residents" following on from The Ossetteer suggesting that the maypole may be taken down, expressing dismay that it has been weaponised for political gain. It has 182 likes on the local Facebook group.

- The Conservative candidate for South Ossett and Horbury has stood down after homophobic and racist posts made on Twitter in 2014 were uncovered.

- Monorail. Monorail. Monorail.

>In a further twist this afternoon at full council, the mayor has had to ask councillors to "stop putting sarcastic comments about monorails" into the meeting's private chat section

https://twitter.com/DavidSpereall/status/1374744205004791808

>>92634

Tom Burnmore's opinion reflects my own view on this matter.

lmao

Friendly reminder that the Liberal Democrats have actually had more power over the past decade than Labour have, at least nationally.

>>92636
Thanks, m8, I'm only six months old so I didn't know this. Did you know the Conservatives have had more power than both and today is a Monday?

>>92636
Green candidates beat the Lib Dems in 22 out of 32 wards at the last Manc elections.

>>92638
The Yorkshire Party beat the Lib Dems in every ward they both contested last time around in Wakey.

Ossett generally votes Tory, which I guess fits in with my girlfriend claiming the place is middle class. I just assumed it was something to do with Dewsbury; if you look at how Kirklees votes then there's generally a blue ring all the way around Dewsbury.

>>92639
>The Yorkshire Party
It's interesting how regionalist and non-English nationalist parties tend to be social democratic, while groups of smaller local independents tend to be gammon conservative crackpots.

>>92639
>>92640
Is the Yorkshire Party the same as the Northern Independence Party? If not, are they likely to work together at any point?

>>92639
>>92640
Is the Yorkshire Party the same as the Northern Independence Party? If not, are they likely to work together at any point?

>>92641
They've been going for a little while and are actually the sixth largest party in England, getting more votes in 2019 than UKIP and Change UK combined, which isn't bad going considering they only stand in Yorkshire. They've also got a few councillors.

>>92639
Looks like five angry ghosts.

>>92641
No you're thinking of the Independence Party of the North.

>>92645

SPLITTERS!

>Labour is to withdraw and destroy an election leaflet that made pledges about “dealing with Traveller incursions” after criticism over its use by a senior MP.

>Charlotte Nichols, the shadow minister for women and equalities, said she wanted to “unreservedly apologise” for the offence and hurt she had caused to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. The MP tweeted pictures on Thursday of herself and activists distributing the leaflet for upcoming local elections in her Warrington North constituency in Cheshire. But after being challenged on social media, she initially said she was not aware of the meaning of “incursion” or its negative connotation and that the party was sourcing new materials.

>She said on Friday morning that she could “understand concerns raised about the language” used in the leaflet, adding that the terminology around “incursions” appeared to be widely used in legal and local government contexts and she was unaware of its “problematic definition”. After the criticism continued, Nichols tweeted a fresh statement hours later in which she unreservedly apologised, adding: “I have spoken to the local Labour party, the leaflet has been withdrawn and the leaflet will be destroyed. I regret that this leaflet has been distributed in the town. The leaflet is not in line with my personal values or those of the Labour party.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/02/labour-destroy-local-election-leaflet-anti-travellers-pledge

No wonder Labour are unelectable. Can't even tell local communities they'll do something about gypsies pitching up in their area without managing to eat themselves alive over the issue.

>>92742
>Incusion
> n. An aggressive entrance into foreign territory; a raid or invasion.
> n. The act of entering another's territory or domain.
> n. The act of entering or running into.

Wots the ploblem?

>>92743
Wanting to address illegal traveller encampments is apparently racist.

BRING BACK THE SMOG.

>>92759
Any more leaflets like that and I'm liable to start building barricades under a green flag. God, imagine if XR had some real balls and we had some kind of climate Euromaidan, instead of just drifting into oblivion like a bunch of weak-necked cretins.

>>92762
You are also a human being with agency.

>>92763
Actually I'm a fucking retard who lives in the armpit of nowhere. I see your point though, I'll take it on board.

>>92764
If you want a flag though, I wouldn't bother with the Green one. Greenpeace's is shite too, you want a Sea Shepherd or a Hunt Sab Association flag. They look much cooler.

>>92762
Why are the Greens so shit in this country compared with, say, mainland Europe? Is it because elsewhere they're more pragmatic and realistic rather than focusing on airy-fairy wooly nonsense?

>>92765
I disagree. You can just get any old bit of green fabric and immediately have The Flag, for example I've got a t-shirt in my cupboard that's perfect so I could be flying the green flag in minutes if I wanted. You don't want to be faffing about with arts and crafts while the revolution's going on.

>>92765

No word of a lie I have been tempted to punch people in the face purely for wearing a sea shepherd t-shirt. You might not understand why but people who wear a swastikas also feel like other people getting aggressive with them is unreasonable too. The same obviously goes for Che but the fact that his face is used like a brand devoid of meaning is the greatest insult to him I could imagine.

>>92768

If Che was still around and was selling those shirts himself for profit then he would probably disagree. It's not clear if your motivation is out of hate or respect for them.

>>92759
If you have to zoom in right at the bottom to see which party printed that, it's a shit leaflet. Also, why on Earth are they targeting the Green Party? In what constituency does the election boil down to Conservatives vs Greens?

>>92770
The postcode gives you the answer you need.

>>92771
Hey, your MP is that frowny-faced woman from the House of Commons! She always looks so incredibly angry.

>>92759
I don't get who they're targeting with this and why they've chosen to focus on those particular points. I mean, the Greens aren't exactly doing well outside of a very specific demographic and those tempted would be more educated so can best be put off by the anti-science stuff.

>>92766
Proportional representation with the result that the mainland greens are also much more integrated with the establishment.

>>92771
Did they even run?
https://rds.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=589

It's best to use the candidates name rather than postcode to due how wards work.

>>92774
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epping_Forest_District_Council_elections#Results_since_2002

Okay I think I get it now in that the Conservatives only real opposition is a local group they'd rather ignore. That leaves the Green and the Lib Dems who both hold 3 seats.

>>92768
Why do the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society make you so angry? Are you a Japanese whaler or something?

>>92768

You could try to explain why?

>>92778
>>92779
I'm not him, but I know a girl who's a big fan of them. They're like vegan daft militant wogs, or the more obnoxious PETA members. I've never felt an urge to punch them, but I know the desire to punch other people who are excessively militant. I would happily punch someone in an "I'm an atheist; debate me" T-shirt or one saying "Women are NOT your property", or even Black Lives Matter before they became properly hardcore and impressive and were still just Twitter whiners. It's all about the tone for me.

>>92778
Sea Shepherd is a good example of a relatively small group of people using violence to enforce their views on others. That's not a value judgment, one side sees it as doing the right thing, another (quite large side) doesn't care, and maybe another is inconvenienced.

It's whataboutism but Mediterranean Marine rescue is, at this point, mostly a civilian endevaour. Should saving a few humans take precedence over attempting to preserve a species? Because the former is an every day kind of thing, the latter is not... but it is final.

>>92785
>Sea Shepherd is a good example of a relatively small group of people using violence to enforce their views on others.
This line of reasoning is blown out of the water when you expand your definition of personhood to anything sentient, which means whales and dolphins absolutely count. Fairly safe to assume they're not okay with being hunted. This all complicates the question of who's instigating violence.

If you're worried about humans drowning then feel free to address that question to all the people involved in any sort of commercial boating who could be rescuing them instead of making a bit more money, or the people whose laws or wars are putting those humans in that position. Whataboutism may be valid in some instances but not this one.

>>92778
>>92779
If I saw an American proudly walking around with a "I support the IRA t-shirt" I might punch them in the face too.

They engage literal piracy, and the people who support them either live in a fairy-tale, where they don't appreciate the awful shit they get up to because it is out of sight (they use mines, ram vessels and throw acid on crew), or they don't care, the sea shepards are daft militant wogs, either way I hold people who support them responsible and don't consider their part benign.

>>92787
>They engage literal piracy, and the people who support them either live in a fairy-tale, where they don't appreciate the awful shit they get up to because it is out of sight (they use mines, ram vessels and throw acid on crew)
Again, they're doing that because the people they're doing it to are, in their morally and scientifically entirely justified point of view, going around indiscriminately murdering people. The outrage at a human being murdered and blasé reaction to the death of a whale is some pure anthropocentrism.

>>92786
Do you ever consider the consequences of the mite holocaust you cause every time you take a shower? How about what the thresher does to all those adorable field mice when you are eating your cereal. What about all of the carbon gasses from the electricity you are using and your car? What about all that waste plastic you have used over your lifetime?

Seems like the most Nobel thing to do if you want to avoid doing any harm is just kill yourself right now, Just stopping at saving a few dozen whales a year seems like pissing in the ocean really on the scale of the horrors you inflict just by existing.

>>92788
>scientifically justified
mmm.

>>92789
Noble, not Nobel and no, killing whales is on orders of magnitude larger than that, especially given the scientifically verified (>>92790 yeah, it is extremely well studied - not by Japanese "scientific" ships though) complexity of their communications and social structures on orders that reflect our own, when at similar scales. If you consider consciousness sacred, and not just humanness, then that all makes sense.

>>92789
That's a bit silly lad, whales for instance are incredibly important to our ecosystem, you can't compare that to taking a shower.

>>92789
Not him but that's a pretty shite argument. Whales are massively more intelligent than anything you listed and eating their meat isn't nearly as necessary as using plastic or fossil fuels, two things which are almost impossible for most people to avoid.

>>92786
>expand your definition of personhood to anything sentient

Why do we always do this; act like there's no difference between sentience and personhood? A whale might be very smart but it's still a dumb animal. I feel like people confuse the two because they've forgotten that humans are actually pretty amazing as a species* and we need the distinction for rights that are very much established self-evidently by our mastery of the planet.

>bloo-bloo the Whales travel in small family herds inhaling low nutrition products

So do the people blocking the aisles at the supermarket but I presume they are also capable of much more. Unless you're seriously going to argue that you should be allowed to have sex with a whale then no, it does not hold personhood. It does not hold the potential for personhood. It is as best a lifeform with a higher potentiality for suffering so we should be mindful that we aren't cruel.

Anyway, this whole discussion is also a bit moot as we in the west obviously do care about some things more than people and our ethics are very scalable. If a daft militant wog group burns some boys alive then nobody cares but if you kidnap some girls and suddenly there's outrage, if you have children starving to death in a country then who cares but if you blow up an old statue then the gloves are off. I'm not sure if we're wrong sometimes but even human life isn't really absolute for us.

*when we're not deliberately sinking our own boats to migrate for economic reasons.

>>92794
Your argument is that killing whales is moral so long as I don't argue that I should have sex with it? What libertarian carpet-baggersense is this?

>>92794
>it does not hold personhood. It does not hold the potential for personhood
Personhood is culturally relative and has at times in the recent past not included slaves, gypsies or jews. I'm not really sure who you think you're convincing with this line of reasoning.
>I presume they are also capable of much more
They're capable of suffering, as you say, what more do you need? People don't count as people unless they're Elon Musk? Fuck off.

>>92795
Hang on I'll make it simple for you:

1. Stretching personhood to anything sentient is moronic - we use two different words for a reason. We literally have two different words to talk about different things. To say an animal has personhood is to assign it attributes it does not have because it recognises itself in the mirror. This isn't fucking Star Trek.

2. Killing an animal for its meat and what-have-you can be fine under most ethical systems which is what whales are. If you want to say that all killing a whale is wrong for cruelty or because they hold a special significance beyond their individual life then that it another conversation entirely.

>>92797
>we use two different words for a reason
Yeah and that reason is that English is an illogical mishmash of all sorts of things, what a terrible argument.
>Killing an animal for its meat and what-have-you can be fine under most ethical systems
The number of ethical systems there are is unquantifiable, that doesn't make any sense.

but yeah
> If you want to say that all killing a whale is wrong for cruelty or because they hold a special significance beyond their individual life then that it another conversation entirely.
that is what we've all said. Nobody here has said it's about eating whale meat. Who eats whale meat? Fucking hell.

>>92796
>Personhood is culturally relative and has at times in the recent past not included slaves, gypsies or jews. I'm not really sure who you think you're convincing with this line of reasoning.

But comparing the historical treatment of any of these groups with animals is offensive for an objective reason.

>They're capable of suffering, as you say, what more do you need? People don't count as people unless they're Elon Musk? Fuck off.

Capability to experience suffering is a piss-poor metric for anything beyond animal cruelty. You're now arguing that most vertebrates (amongst others) hold personhood.

>>92800
>But comparing the historical treatment of any of these groups with animals is offensive for an objective reason.
What's that then?

>>92798
>Yeah and that reason is that English is an illogical mishmash of all sorts of things, what a terrible argument.

No, they're barely on the same metric dear.

Sentience is the capacity to experience through senses. It is a biological term.
Personhood is the recognition of a thing as having the attributes of a person, in a philosophical context this being attached to sapience.

>>92802

And the important difference between sapience and sentience being... ?

Fuck it yes, human beings are better and fundamentally different than all other animals, which are stupid and serve only as a source of food and entertainment for me, the only way any of the other creature on this planet will get off this rock is on the back of our technology. Whales are too stupid to not drive themselves up a fucking beach repeatedly and I would gladly eat one.

If the whales don't like it, let them come and debate me. Stop presuming to speak on their behalf, you don't know what's best for them they do.

>>92803
Sentience is to know oneself as distinct from the world and perceive the interactions - your cat is sentient, a jellyfish is not.
Sapience is to know things and conduct high-level abstract reasoning - you are sapient, your cat is not (when we're looking).

TNG is especially guilty of confusing the two terms but they're not the same thing.

>>92804

This is basically how we felt about black people up until about a century ago.

I don't know who's dafter at this point; the one who thinks dust mites and whales are the one and the same or the other lad who thinks killing whales is a slippery slope down towards holocaust. Get to bed the pair of you, before I turn the wifi off.

>>92807
Nobody said it was the slippery slope to the holocaust.

>>92805
Okay. But whales and dolphins exhibit both.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2016.00087/full
The other lad is just stuck in some sort of post-Christian man-at-centre-of-universe thinking. "They can't be people if they don't look like me".

FUCK YOU, WHALE.

>>92807

It's not even a slippery slope, you don't even need the numbers to know our genocides against other species vastly and unquestionably outweigh the holocaust. If you think it doesn't count just because an elephant has never written a book, then you're just a fucking arsehole, frankly.

>>92807
Mites and whales are the same lad here.

The reasons people pick for not killing whales seem entirely arbitrary to me. If it is about pain or fear than that seems to be more universal than animals who can recognize themselves in the mirror, or learn sign language. Even single cellar organisms seem to exhibit panic (in the form of flight) when an amoeba starts digesting them. So what exactly is should be the cut off? where we shouldn't give a shit so we can function guilt free? Because mankind eating a billion chickens annually but agressively protesting less than a thousand whales seems like a weird standard. What's your pet, what's vermin, what's your food, what you wouldn't do but would tolerate all seems about as arbitrary and as well formed ideas as a religion to me and about as indoctrinated.

I presume sea shepherd supporters to by and large be militant vegans who can't win the culture war in their own society so have taken to the sea, and switching the city for the sea doesn't make me anymore more convinced by their arguments. And other than not hunting whales to extinction which is valid, I don't see a reason why we shouldn't just eat them. If anything I find the argument that we shouldn't eat other animals more of a presumption of superiority of humanity than just eating them, it is treating us as somehow divorced from everything else even our own base drives. And if you are going to feel guilty about the things that end up on the plate I don't see why you shouldn't feel guilty about the 'indirect consequences' of other aspects of society that disrupt and destroy the natural world, if it is just a 'having it on a plate feels like pulling the trigger' than I am sorry that is just a baseless emotion argument because you haven't thought about the full ramifications of just having civilisation has had. I would go as far as to say there isn't a single object in your house that is guilt free. Plastics come from oil which randomly leaks and poisons everything, anything plant based meant destroying the habitat of some animals before placing down a mono-culture and spraying pesticides all over it. Metals mean smelting which meant releasing poison into the sky. All of this is by the 'don't kill Whales' standards much much worse and you are participating in that cycle just by existing now. Quite honestly the only way to live guilt free would be to kill yourself, and I don't see a difference between industrialized destruction of the natural world and hunting whales to see why I should care other than that whales have a better PR team.

>>92813
"People only care about whales but not chickens because of all the PR whales have" is a bad take at most times of year,

>>92813

The main problem with humans, as a predatory species, is that we're too thick to know when we're stepping over the lines. We do think we're above and outside nature, and that's the problem- We don't realise nature will turn right back around to put us in our place eventually. Even in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic we haven't sussed it out yet.

Eating ten billion chickens a year is fine because we have big chicken factories where we breed the daft little twats with no purpose in life but to become food. It's bleak and we probably should feel guilty about it, but we do have to eat, and chicken is both plentiful and delicious. Eating whales, an already endangered species which we have driven into near extinction purely by the callousness of our other actions, never mind the hunting, that's what I'd call excessive. It's not like we need the meat when we've got ten billion chickens- We're really only doing it because it gets our primitive monkey dicks hard to slap our environment in the face like that, as an act of dominance and adversarial self affirmation.

I wish we lived in an anthropomorphic society where there would be at least be incredibly powerful erotic dynamics between predator and prey species.

>>92813
>I presume sea shepherd supporters to by and large be militant vegans who can't win the culture war in their own society so have taken to the sea, and switching the city for the sea doesn't make me anymore more convinced by their arguments.
And "The Masked Singer" is a more important piece of art than The Illiad.
>What's your pet, what's vermin, what's your food, what you wouldn't do but would tolerate all seems about as arbitrary and as well formed ideas as a religion to me and about as indoctrinated.
No more or less arbitrary than how we define personhood, as has already been covered in this thread. How about just eating fruit, vegetables and mycoprotein? They're all essentially fruiting bodies that the plants want to be eaten as part of their life cycle. That's not arbitrary.
>civilisation is terrible
This is just whataboutism. If things are bad, you try to improve them. You don't decide that it's therefore fine to make everything worse.

>>92815

Is Beastars good, then?

>>92815
This. There's whole cycles of inter-dependency and interactions that leave us vulnerable to all sorts of unintended and often unforeseen consequences.
Whales for instance are important even when they die, as the carcass slowly sinking through the ocean is central to a lot of other species. If we drove whales to extinction we'd likely see a whole load of other food chains collapse.

>>92817

I haven't watched it because the art style is too unsexy, so I couldn't possibly say.

>>92814

Get your pagan rituals out of the festival Christian's have co opted you sickened me. Easter is the celebration of having new things to murder not the preservation of them.

>>92815

As I said I see the value in not driving them to extinction, but not all whales are endangered, and I think we should eat those.

Also I presume you wanked yourself stupid to zootopia?

>>92816
>No more or less arbitrary than how we define personhood, as has already been covered in this thread

Okay vegan. If you want me to presume you to be bat shit keep talking about how things that aren't human should be people, and make the arbitrary connection between groups of people being treated as a person for the sake of legal convenience and a wild animal like they are the same whilst you are at. I know you think you have some sort of argument here but you actually don't anyone who isn't already in the choir can see a clear distinct difference between a human and a multi ton water cow. Even if you pluck a chicken it isn't a man.

> How about just eating fruit, vegetables and mycoprotein? They're all essentially fruiting bodies that the plants want to be eaten as part of their life cycle. That's not arbitrary.

Firstly let us be clear you have jumped tracks from talking about animals to talking about fruit which should be argument enough of why this point is irrelevant to talking about how we treat whales relative to other animals that might feel.

Secondly there is nothing natural about fruit we have selectively breeding those fruit to not be poisonous to us (not all fruit was 'intended' for animal consumption) and so malformed they don't even produce their own seeds anymore and to produce giant distorted versions of their fruit and we produce it all year round by building factorie over the environment and poisoning anything natural that tries to encroach on them. And that is before we get into modern GM. You are right that isn't arbitrary, that is is the systematic engineering of a new species and the natural world to solely service us.

>This is just whataboutism

My argument was that giving a shit about whales is entirely arbitrary. Whataboutism is the entire point of my argument. This isn't a silver bullet.

>>92818

>whales are important even when they die their bodies feed other animals

Well then do I have good news for you about the methodologies of 19th century whaling...

>>92820
>but not all whales are endangered, and I think we should eat those.
Why?
Whaling isn't even profitable, it's subsidised by the governments of Whaling countries and they still manage to run up stockpiles of unsold whale meat that winds up in dogfood or forced on schoolkids to get shot of it. Whales aren't like chickens where we can't resist stuffing ourselves to obesity with them, people don't actually enjoy eating whale in commercially viable quantities.
That's the thing hippies always miss: In a purely commercial sense whaling is a gigantic waste of everybody's time and money.

If you just want people to eat everything and anything you'd have a better job trying to get more people to eat pigeons.

>>92820
>Okay vegan. If you want me to presume you to be bat shit keep talking about how things that aren't human should be people, and make the arbitrary connection between groups of people being treated as a person for the sake of legal convenience and a wild animal like they are the same whilst you are at.
You're the one saying that the lines are arbitrary. They're no less arbitrary when drawn between humans and other animals, no matter what your Masked Singer fan crowd might think.
>Firstly let us be clear you have jumped tracks from talking about animals to talking about fruit
You didn't jump the tracks when you started talking about "single cellar" organisms? Or all that dross about how civilisation is bad?
>Secondly there is nothing natural about fruit we have selectively breeding those fruit to not be poisonous to us
Right. I'm going to take a cue from you earlier on, where you dismissed something on the grounds it's not popular, and dismiss you on the grounds that your syntax is fucking awful and I can't be bothered to grapple with your insane run-on sentences. Your brain is broken.

>>92820

>Also I presume you wanked yourself stupid to zootopia?

Not to the film itself, but the community has produced a wealth of highly tasteful erotica, as I am sure you can imagine.

Just look at this little tart though. To put it in terms you lot would understand, she's my Vorderman.

>>92824
>Vorderman

Eyes are pointing the wrong way.

>>92810
That article doesn't actually say anything as far as I can tell. Yes Whales have families and teach one-another to do things, how novel, but they self-evidently lack sapience. There's no artificial (i.e. whale constructed) governance from whale parliament or artificial constructs like whale taxation to pay for whale schools. It's not like blacks in the American South where society had to gear itself on the contradiction despite it being in plain sight and remove passages from slave bibles.

What you need to do is find a new word between sentient and sapient rather than try to claim Whales as people.

>>92815
You should really drop the tedious misanthropy already - it's very 2019.

>>92833
>There's no artificial (i.e. whale constructed) governance from whale parliament or artificial constructs like whale taxation to pay for whale schools.
Firstly, that's not part of the definition of sapience (either the one you gave or ones I find elsewhere) and secondly, you wouldn't know if they did have those things.

>>92834

Not them but the person you think they are. I would know they don't have a parliament the same way i know there isn't a tea pot in orbit, because they evidently aren't that smart. I know you saw one documentary on how whales care for their young and sing and think they are very special but they really aren't. Chickens have a word for land predator and a different word for air predator. It doesn't make them smart enough to care about them over a different animal which I will either eat or kill because it is an inconvenient.

>>92836

You know there isn't a tea pot in orbit because they evidently aren't that smart? I know you read a sentence that included some of those words once and it made sense, but that one doesn't.
Chickens have instinctive noises they make in certain situations, whales and dolphins have languages, dialects, and use them to transmit information about various things, including tool use. This is social learning and hard evidence that they do have culture and social structures in the same way we do. You're just wrong about this.

>>92836

You're telling me there isn't a single teapot on the ISS? Bollocks.

>>92841
The ISS is the INTERNATIONAL Space Station. They don't drink tea. They're not as civilised as us.

>>92837
>You know there isn't a tea pot in orbit because they evidently aren't that smart? I know you read a sentence that included some of those words once and it made sense, but that one doesn't.

Found the Whale, fuck off back to your parliament.

> Whales and dolphins have languages, dialects, and use them to transmit information about various things, including tool use. This is social learning and hard evidence that they do have culture and social structures in the same way we do.

no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1FY5kL_zXU

Again you are very generous in your use of "what we do" for social structures, dolphins do not have an accredited Hydro dynamical Engineer who is sub contracted to the state water company on by a private organisation so they don’t come under head count but instead expenses do they?

>>92843
>dolphins do not have an accredited Hydro dynamical Engineer who is sub contracted to the state water company on by a private organisation so they don’t come under head count but instead expenses do they?
Nor did humans for effectively 100% of all time, what's your point?

>>92842
They have Russians on board, there's bound to be an illegal samovar somewhere on the ISS. For testing vapour mechanics in low gravity or some such.

>>92844
That dolphins do not have social structures in the same way we do.

>>92846
So humans weren't people until whenever all that was invented. Great fucking logic there.

>>92842
There's not only tea in space but they also installed an espresso machine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSpresso

In fact the Russians even used tea to find a crack in the shell.

>>92848

Is it weird that I instantly recognised that she was in space from her hair and the way her subcutaneous fat was distributed but translated the rest of the image as a basement flat in Hounslow being renovated?

>>92849

I see what you mean - the space espresso machine looks a bit like a consumer unit at first glance. I don't know what possessed the Russians to paint their half of the station like a 1970s school.

It comes to something when one of the most sensible posters on this website is a bloody furry. You lot need to have words.

>>92850
I prefer Hager, honestly. If cost matters I might go Wylex though the flex on Hager lids is nice for installation. Shame they fucked over independent shops. MK for posh jobs, of course.

>>92852

You are Big Clive and I claim my £5.

>>92853
Genuinely hope he is, I adore him with all my heart.