strombergnlp/rumoureval_2019 · Datasets at Hugging Face

id stringlengths 1 4	source_text stringlengths 7 272	reply_text stringlengths 2 3.76k ⌀	label class label 4 classes
4600	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Some people might be inclined to get upset and call you a 'moron' or 'incredibly stupid' for comparing a scientific fact about the shape of the Earth with a opinion about a politician and a newspaper as if they are equal. Then again some people might not.	3comment
4601	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	And they're entirely within their rights to do that, but I stand by my slur.	3comment
4602	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Top notch journalism there.	3comment
4603	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	You mean King Charles of course.	3comment
4604	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Lib Dem detected.	3comment
4605	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	A tree will bend before it breaks. He's pushed it, as king he best not push too far.	3comment
4606	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	I'm a Dane, here to conquer yer bloody country you anglo-saxon poofs! arrrrggg.	3comment
4607	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Wasn't there a proposal to have full front-page apologies recently?	3comment
4608	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Well the name was changed from Saxeburg Göthe in 1917 to because everyone hated the germans at that point so a bit more recent and a bit more relevant. The main point I make is it's a bit silly claiming the queen is some symbol of British purity or whatever when she and the whole of the royal family almost a perfect example of the opposite. Special note aside for the usual Moggy cringiness of "Why we all heartily sing God Save the Queen". Huge fan of the guy on most stuff. but honestly If I didn't know who the guy was I would have thought he was American with how he seems to live in some twee alternative reality of the UK where we all skip around in bowler hats and toast the queen while Jerusalem plays in the background.	3comment
4609	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	[deleted]	3comment
4610	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Interesting factoid "Ta'" in the north is related to the Danish word (Tak). A lot of northern Lingo is scandic in Origin due to their heavier influence on that area. Possibly pretty obvious but I was mind blown as never really thought about it before I was told it. I was so used to just laughing at Scottish people whenever they claim they're Scandinavian that I never thought of the origins of it.	3comment
4611	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	>A tree will bend before it breaks. How do you mean? >He's pushed it, as king he best not push too far. He'll keep on pushing I reckon. He's a born pusher.	3comment
4612	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Wow, that is fascinating! I hope you never mock our proud Scandi heritage again.	3comment
4613	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	And the BBC are now reporting that [the Queen has issued a non-denial of it](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35760912), saying that she is neutral and they won't comment on silly claims.	3comment
4614	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Oh I accept the heritage. But I just find this thing of "oh we're closer to scandinavians than the English" on the same level of delusion as American Irish people.	3comment
4615	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	A minor point but there hasn't been a Queen of England for 300+ years. England stopped being a kingdom in the 1700s - also kind of in the 1500s when it absorbed Wales, but it kept the name that time.	3comment
4616	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Spurious Scandis, if you will.	3comment
4617	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Tonight on the six oclock news : Prince Charles accused of dealing drugs.	3comment
4618	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	[deleted]	3comment
4619	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	It's the army which are sworn to protect government, the people and democracy, and their name reflects that: British Army On the other hand, the ROYAL Airforce, ROYAL Navy, ROYAL Marines etc all swear to protect the Queen, hence the ROYAL in their names.	3comment
4620	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Not sure, but this is the reference I was going for: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/times-corrects-misleading-headline-follow-suns-one-five-muslims-poll-report	3comment
4621	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	[As of 2013 at least 39 bills had been subject to royal approval, including the 1999 Military Actions Against Iraq Bill and the 2004 Civil Partnership Act.](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9801835/Queen-and-Prince-Charles-using-power-of-veto-over-new-laws-Whitehall-documents-reveal.html)	3comment
4622	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	That's not a denial!	3comment
4623	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Being against the EU is nothing to do with 'British purity'. You've invented that idea to justify the silly quip that the Queen is German because some of her ancestors are German, knowing full well that it's no less racist than saying a black person can't be British because their ancestors are African.	3comment
4624	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	I'm allowed to quip all I want when we're coming out with complete bollocks about the Queen protecting us from "european enroachment". Especially coming from a man who seems to be living in a foreigners sketch of British stereotypes. It's a complete nonsense statement in the first place. I thought the unbe-leavers were meant to be the humorless ones?	3comment
4625	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	It is, and so is calling the Queen German.	3comment
4626	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	when a situation like this happens it causes soldiers to fight against the government.	3comment
4627	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	she did like doing nazi salutes though	3comment
4628	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Holy crap the butthurt I've unleashed from a quip. Sory for daring to make jokes about a stupid statement. I shall stay in silence for fear of triggering anyone.	3comment
4629	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	I doubt the remain camp would take it well if I said staying in the EU was about race-mixing, which is the converse claim to the one you made about British purity.	3comment
4630	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	What the hell are you talking about? It's a joke about a dumb statement. I wouldn't even care if the queen was a full on WW1 German stereotype spiked helmet and everything anyway. Making a joke at someones ignorance of how intertwined european royal families are and have always been is not quite the same as discussing racial purity theories is probably why people wouldn't react the same way.	3comment
4631	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	No. They are and should be loyal to The Crown. The Rule of Law matters most. It was created to restrain The Crown, and still does. A pity that it doesn't restrain Parliament. Canada and America have legislatures constrained by written, codified constitutions with human rights codes, and supreme courts with the power to review legislation and strike it down. In the UK, The Crown is the only real constraint on parliamentary tyranny and on tyranny of the majority. The Crown prevents a prime minister from declaring themselves Fuhrer after purging another party. Of course democracy matters, but constitutionalism, rule of law, civil liberties, and a system of checks and balances matter more. If the armed forces sided against The Crown, they would be guilty of perjury. Republicans in Parliament are already guilty of perjury. And even if The Crown exercised real power now, Parliament would still be stronger. Hanoverian Kings exercised deal power daily but were weaker than Parliament. Executive Constitutional Monarchy is as viable and stable as Ceremonial Constitutional Monarchy.	3comment
4632	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Sham Swedes?	3comment
4633	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	What august company you republicans keep. Murdoch and Sinn Fien.	3comment
4634	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	I meant that there will be some tolerance for the monarchy getting involved in politics but only to a point. Beyond that and Britain will become a Republic again.	3comment
4635	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	The Queen has the same role as a president in a parliamentary system, to ensure laws are constitutional. If a bill is clearly illegal, she is the last line of defence but she can't just refuse to sign a bill because she doesn't approve of it or doesn't like the direction the government is going.	3comment
4636	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Well if one will read such a vile excuse for a newspaper...	3comment
4637	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	British republicanism is probably the only camp where Sinn Fien and Oliver Crowmwell can possibly occupy the same space.	3comment
4638	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Yep but I doubt they will, any MP who pushed for it can expect Murdoch to crucify them for it. Although personally I think the apology should be the exact same size and place of the offending article. It would make papers thing twice before printing massive lies on their front page if they had to follow it up a week later with a retraction.	3comment
4639	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	> British Army But where does that leave us british lefities then?	3comment
4640	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	No, that's in Egypt.	3comment
4641	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5NOYpyfwWw	3comment
4642	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	No the Monarchy. The Aristocracy is different. Have you never read Aristotle?	3comment
4643	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Charles II probably had less power than Cromwell.	3comment
4644	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	It sure did with little Cleggy's denial.	3comment
4645	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Yes, but the newspaper proposing the idea lied about the chances of such a proposal ever happening in the self-regulated newspaper industry. They did apologise for this lie, but you might not have seen it as it was in tiny writing on page 57 below a pic of the Prime Minister photoshopped into a compromising situation with a pig.	3comment
4646	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	> who then went back to their company and wrote to all employees in Scotland In fairness I wish this was the way all corporate lobbying operated. Petition your employees who then petition government and vote in their own interests (while taking on board the company's views). --- Corporate political donations could work in a similar way. The amount of money a company was planning on donating gets divided up and each employee gets a 'campaign voucher' that they are free to give to any political party of their choosing. The company then petitions their employees on who they'd prefer the donations go to, why that party is better for the company and its employees, etc. And how the policies of that party will enable the company to grow, wages to rise, etc. Ultimately though the donations would be made anonymously by employees entirely at their own discretion after weighing their employer's arguments against their own views. ...Union donations would work in the exact same way.	3comment
4647	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	That's good.!	3comment
4648	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	And that would be fine if Junker were the leader of the largest party of MEPs and campaigned as their leader during the election. That would be transparency. Cameron trying to stop it is as much of a problem as any of the other leaders trying to support it. The point is that these decisions are taken far away from the electorate with zero accountability. I doubt the US population would be happy with their president being selected by all the state governors under the argument that any law has to be passed by the House anyway. This is not even close to democratic. FPTP for all its flaws at least is an election. Why are you supporting a system that diminishes the power of voters?	3comment
4649	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Well the US president is selected by the electoral college who do have the power to ignore the popular vote but obviously that is not really relevant. The EU is trying to make the election of the president more transparent. Bizarrely, it's the people who argue that the EU needs reform such as Cameron who oppose such changes. Also I support the EU because as an Irish citizen, I have seen directly the good it has done for my country. I also see real attempts to make the system fairer and more democratic through documents like the Lisbon treaty.	3comment
4650	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	But, if she thought it was important enough she could...	3comment
4651	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	That's not a bad idea actually. But as you say probably has less chance than a snowball in Hell.	3comment
4652	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	I don't think he's smart enough to realise that. We'll probably see the Republic during his reign.	3comment
4653	'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow	Just don't give another Cromwell the helm. He wasn't so nice to us over here in Ireland.	3comment
4654	Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD	I know the consensus is real, but I would like to specifically debunk the info in this particular article. I see that the quotes in the article are taken from a book about climate denial. Here are some links I usually use to support the consensus: https://skepticalscience.com/debunking-climate-consensus-denial.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php	3comment
4655	Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD	[deleted]	3comment
4656	Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD	Ew	3comment
4657	Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD	Lol natural news. On a serious note, even if the 97% consensus is "bunk" the science is not. Edit: I'm going to expand on this a little more and explain why the science is not bunk: Firstly, we know that CO2 traps heat, it is a greenhouse gas just like methane and water vapour. The way these molecules trap heat is easy: they absorb the radiation, keep it then radiate it out in all directions. Other molecules then pick up this radiated heat and the cycles continues. The way this becomes a problem is due to positive feedback, which is a way of saying "something causes itself". Heating the atmosphere has another effect, heating up air allows for it to absorb more water vapour and since water vapour is a GHG, yeah you're seeing where this is going. The warmer the atmosphere gets, the more GHG's it can absorb and so on. Now where deniers get this wrong is the whole state of the CO2. Yes plants and trees absorb CO2, the issue is that this cycle (aptly named the Carbon Cycle) was in equalibium, the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere was equal to the amount leaving. Now it is not equal, the amount entering the atmosphere is far more than the total biomass can absorb and thus a net increase. I hope this clears up certain myths because the science of climate change is really not difficult to understand. (I'm a student in my 3rd year of environmental science with year 1 being mostly CC so AMA I guess?)	3comment
4658	Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD	This is the entire problem with using bandwagon fallacies as an argument for something. You end up arguing things that really shouldn't matter - it doesn't matter whether 2, 50 or 97% of scientists "endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming" - and arguing the percentage is a waste of time. If they want to argue against man made climate change they need to provide evidence that the climate isn't changing due to man's actions. Still - here we are. First thing I noticed was that it talks about one survey, when multiple have been conducted showing similar percentages, the wikipedia article you linked talks about Harris Interactive's survey of 489 randomly selected scientists, the 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters that looked at 11,944 abstracts - I believe there have been others. The site seems to ignore these. The other things that jump out at me are. > the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them “experts." Well no the researchers did not do that, those surveyed did - by publishing papers on climate change - it shouldn't be a surprise that out of 3,146 scientists only 79 of them were climate scientists... It's a poor way to decide if man made climate change is correct or not - but I don't think the poll claims that it is. > So if I send out an email survey to 1000 people, and then I hand-pick the 75 responses I like the best, then can I proclaim those results to be "settled science" too? Will Al Gore champion my cause and demand billions in reparations from first world nations on my behalf? No because it doesn't prove anything, nor is that an accurate description of what happened, nor should this (sadly it is) used to describe how correct anthropomorphic climate change is. So sure, if we ignore all other surveys that confirm the statistic - then this alone as a support for anthropomorphic climate change is weak, usefully there are other things supporting man made climate change other than one email poll.	3comment
4659	Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD	you would think this guy would know bunk when he sees it. look at all the bunk for sale on that page alone	3comment
4660	Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD	I got two sentences in and quit reading	3comment
4661	Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD	The linked article does have an element of truth in it, in that the statistic is often stated incorrectly. The [Doran (2009) study](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/eost2009EO03/epdf) found that 97% of those respondents with the greatest level of expertise in climate science agreed that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." The NaturalNews article seems to suggest that these respondents were cherry-picked to produce the desired result, but they represented those "who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change." This is naturally going to be a much smaller subset of scientists, but it includes those whose knowledge and expertise is arguably most relevant. This result is often shorthanded in public discourse to "97% of scientists agree," but that's not an issue of scientific fraud. The scientists explained it fully in their publication. It's also relevant (but not addressed in the NaturalNews article) that several independent studies have been done using different methods, and reached very similar conclusions. [This skepticalscience.com article](https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm) provides a good overview.	3comment
4662	Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD	Oh oh, Skeptoid did an episode about this recently! Another important thing to note is that we can tell the difference between carbon sources based on the amount of C14 isotopes they have. Since C14 is made in the atmosphere and likes to decay, things that are alive have proportions of C14 to C12 in line with the atmosphere, with some notable exceptions. Things that are dead lose their C14 as it decays to the more stable C12. Since the stuff we're concerned about is "fossil fuel", fuel derived from the remains of long-dead life forms, it has no remaining C14. We can check the proportion of our atmosphere composed of C14 to C12 and tell that the vast majority of added carbon in the CO2 is C12. The only other real source of massive amounts of C12 being pumped into the atmosphere is volcanoes, and we know how much CO2 they're pumping out. It's much less than the increase of CO2 we're experiencing, doesn't explain the increase.	3comment
4663	Did Eric Schneiderman Help NXIVM Sell Child Sex Slaves To The Clintons?	[Archive.is link](https://archive.is/2020/http://goodizen.com/did-eric-schneiderman-help-nxivm-sell-child-sex-slaves-to-the-clintons/) [Why this is here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7dvxxb/new_feature_automod_will_create_sticky_comments/) I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.	3comment
4664	Did Eric Schneiderman Help NXIVM Sell Child Sex Slaves To The Clintons?	SS: # Allegation emerged that Eric Schneiderman Helped NXIVM Sell Child Sex Slaves To The Clintons, but MSM denies that’s the case. Eric Scheiderman is a Democrat with known ties to the Clintons and the Soros. [Frankreport.com](https://frankreport.com/2018/05/07/girlfriend-beating-atty-gen-schneiderman-resigns-now-we-know-why-he-wouldnt-prosecute-raniere/): Eric Schneiderman Helped NXIVM Sell Child Sex Slaves To The Clintons [NYDailynews](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/no-nxivm-sex-cult-not-tied-bill-hillary-clinton-article-1.3971471): No, the NXIVM sex cult is not tied to Bill and Hillary Clinton Bombshell: Eric Schneiderman Was Funded By Soros. Schneiderman, a staunch pro\-Clinton advocate, [received hundreds of thousands of dollars](http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=efs_sch_report+p_filer_id=A21032+p_e_year=2017+p_freport_id=J+p_transaction_code=A) from Soros in order to secure his position in politics. What are the odds Eric Schneiderman helped NXIVM sell child Sex slaves to the Clintons?	0support
4665	Did Eric Schneiderman Help NXIVM Sell Child Sex Slaves To The Clintons?	sure,why not...i've bet on worse odds.	3comment
4666	Did Eric Schneiderman Help NXIVM Sell Child Sex Slaves To The Clintons?	Stormy Daniels involved? I’ve seen a. Few threads (all down voted to heck) about her allegedly having a nxivm brand. This cult could be a major linchpin to some big revelations Edit: my last comment was deleted Edit edit: my last comments were not deleted, so I deleted duplicates	3comment
4667	Did Eric Schneiderman Help NXIVM Sell Child Sex Slaves To The Clintons?	Did Trump let Putin assfuck him while he was bent over the Resolute Desk? I, too, can ask ridiculous questions with little to no evidence with which to back them up.	3comment
4668	Did Eric Schneiderman Help NXIVM Sell Child Sex Slaves To The Clintons?	That's valid conspiracy. Now that axxhole Trump has betray our security, I wouldn't be surprised he has been axxf\-\-ked all the way to his lung by Netanyahu. Go ahead to create a thick conspiracy on this ...	3comment
4669	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice * Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in any comment, parent or child. * Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * Report comments that violate these rules. Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead. Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.	3comment
4670	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	I can.	0support
4671	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	I can use both, but recently read that Stephen Fry has this issue of one working nostril at a time. Never knew most people are like this. Will be interesting to find out.	3comment
4672	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	I was always able to breath through both nostrils. I had quite extensive surgery on my nostrils a few years ago, but as I said: I usually always have/had both sides open.	3comment
4673	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	Idk I just tested it, seems wrong.	1deny
4674	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	Sounds like bull. It's your source someone down the pub?	1deny
4675	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	Most people have an alternating primary nostril to allow one a rest and moistening period. This is also why when you are sick and congested, the pressure will occasionally shift to the other side.	3comment
4676	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	This is not a topic that has come up, ever, but I also have never met anyone who mentioned being able to breathe through only one nostril either. I breathe through both, unless sometimes when I have a cold.	3comment
4677	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	To anyone that had surgery in an attempt to breathe through both nostrils, how did it go? Would you recommend the procedure to anyone else?	3comment
4678	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	I just tried and can breathe through both. Jokes on us eh?	3comment
4679	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	I've always had an issue with the "nasal cycle", it is quite frustrating. It will be interesting to see how many people can/cannot breathe through both nostrils.	3comment
4680	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	I can breath with both nostrils but the other one is a little weaker. The weaker one changes occasionally.	3comment
4681	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	I can breathe through both, but more odten i don't because my nose is basically constantly clogged because of allergies etc. But when i'm at the sea and the air is cleaner and saltier, i can normally breathe through both of them	3comment
4682	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	I was doing some research online as I was interested in how I could go about 'fixing' this said issue. However, it sounds like it's a common issue. Therefore I'm resulting to Reddit to get a better understanding of who can/cannot breathe through both nostrils.	3comment
4683	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	I can usually breath through both but I've had a sinus infection for like a month now and I can only breath through the right	3comment
4684	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	Glad to know I'm not the only one! I was doing some research about the issue that I have and it's to do with the "nasal cycle". Worth a read if you are interested.	3comment
4685	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	Did you just bamboozle us all? I breathe through both	3comment
4686	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	I have a severely deviated septum almost completely blocking one nostril, and I still breathe through both all the time.	3comment
4687	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	I definitely can use both. If I only could use one at a time I would litteraly not get enough air fast enough.	3comment
4688	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	Can you share the link, please?	3comment
4689	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	Wait what?? I thought I was one of the few cases who can breathe from 1 nostril. So basically you are saying I am on the majority side??	2query
4690	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	You tested the whole nation?	3comment
4691	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	No, I tested myself you dyngus. How about you? Can you? I think it's one of those bullshit stats.	1deny
4692	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	I breath from 1 only	3comment
4693	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	I can breathe with both nostrils, but don’t because I’ve been hit in my face so many times that only the left nostril can inhale, unless I’m putting my nose at a weird angle.	3comment
4694	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	TIL about myself. Only my right nostril seems to function.	3comment
4695	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	I've had sinus issues all of my life and just assumed it was easier for everone to breath though there mouth than their nose because, you know the bigger hole and all. Then after some reoccurring issues I finally had sinus surgery. OH, MY, GOD. It's like night and day. I can actually breath, it's ridiculous.	3comment
4696	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	It's not a bug, it's a feature. You definitely want your nostrils doing this. Everyone breathes this way. Everyone also occasionally breathes through both nostrils. It's part of the cycle. It isn't 85% of people, it's 15% of the time you're using both, half of the remainder the left, the other half the right. Time, not people.	3comment
4697	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	After some research, apparently so! Although I am dubious about the statistics that were coming through when I was researching, hence why I resorted to asking the question on Reddit.	3comment
4698	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	I breathe through both, and I'm thinking now that this might be why I constantly have dry nostrils and wake up with dry blood in my nose constsntly.	3comment
4699	[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?	Yeah that's one of the things that popped up when I was researching my 'issue'. Regardless of the fact, being able to constantly breathe through both nostrils sounds like a luxury.	3comment

4600

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Some people might be inclined to get upset and call you a 'moron' or 'incredibly stupid' for comparing a scientific fact about the shape of the Earth with a opinion about a politician and a newspaper as if they are equal. Then again some people might not.

3comment

4601

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

And they're entirely within their rights to do that, but I stand by my slur.

3comment

4602

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Top notch journalism there.

3comment

4603

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

You mean King Charles of course.

3comment

4604

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Lib Dem detected.

3comment

4605

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

A tree will bend before it breaks. He's pushed it, as king he best not push too far.

3comment

4606

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

I'm a Dane, here to conquer yer bloody country you anglo-saxon poofs! arrrrggg.

3comment

4607

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Wasn't there a proposal to have full front-page apologies recently?

3comment

4608

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Well the name was changed from Saxeburg Göthe in 1917 to because everyone hated the germans at that point so a bit more recent and a bit more relevant. The main point I make is it's a bit silly claiming the queen is some symbol of British purity or whatever when she and the whole of the royal family almost a perfect example of the opposite. Special note aside for the usual Moggy cringiness of "Why we all heartily sing God Save the Queen". Huge fan of the guy on most stuff. but honestly If I didn't know who the guy was I would have thought he was American with how he seems to live in some twee alternative reality of the UK where we all skip around in bowler hats and toast the queen while Jerusalem plays in the background.

3comment

4609

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

[deleted]

3comment

4610

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Interesting factoid "Ta'" in the north is related to the Danish word (Tak). A lot of northern Lingo is scandic in Origin due to their heavier influence on that area. Possibly pretty obvious but I was mind blown as never really thought about it before I was told it. I was so used to just laughing at Scottish people whenever they claim they're Scandinavian that I never thought of the origins of it.

3comment

4611

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

>A tree will bend before it breaks. How do you mean? >He's pushed it, as king he best not push too far. He'll keep on pushing I reckon. He's a born pusher.

3comment

4612

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Wow, that is fascinating! I hope you never mock our proud Scandi heritage again.

3comment

4613

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

And the BBC are now reporting that [the Queen has issued a non-denial of it](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35760912), saying that she is neutral and they won't comment on silly claims.

3comment

4614

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Oh I accept the heritage. But I just find this thing of "oh we're closer to scandinavians than the English" on the same level of delusion as American Irish people.

3comment

4615

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

A minor point but there hasn't been a Queen of England for 300+ years. England stopped being a kingdom in the 1700s - also kind of in the 1500s when it absorbed Wales, but it kept the name that time.

3comment

4616

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Spurious Scandis, if you will.

3comment

4617

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Tonight on the six oclock news : Prince Charles accused of dealing drugs.

3comment

4618

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

[deleted]

3comment

4619

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

It's the army which are sworn to protect government, the people and democracy, and their name reflects that: British Army On the other hand, the ROYAL Airforce, ROYAL Navy, ROYAL Marines etc all swear to protect the Queen, hence the ROYAL in their names.

3comment

4620

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Not sure, but this is the reference I was going for: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/times-corrects-misleading-headline-follow-suns-one-five-muslims-poll-report

3comment

4621

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

[As of 2013 at least 39 bills had been subject to royal approval, including the 1999 Military Actions Against Iraq Bill and the 2004 Civil Partnership Act.](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9801835/Queen-and-Prince-Charles-using-power-of-veto-over-new-laws-Whitehall-documents-reveal.html)

3comment

4622

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

That's not a denial!

3comment

4623

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Being against the EU is nothing to do with 'British purity'. You've invented that idea to justify the silly quip that the Queen is German because some of her ancestors are German, knowing full well that it's no less racist than saying a black person can't be British because their ancestors are African.

3comment

4624

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

I'm allowed to quip all I want when we're coming out with complete bollocks about the Queen protecting us from "european enroachment". Especially coming from a man who seems to be living in a foreigners sketch of British stereotypes. It's a complete nonsense statement in the first place. I thought the unbe-leavers were meant to be the humorless ones?

3comment

4625

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

It is, and so is calling the Queen German.

3comment

4626

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

when a situation like this happens it causes soldiers to fight against the government.

3comment

4627

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

she did like doing nazi salutes though

3comment

4628

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Holy crap the butthurt I've unleashed from a quip. Sory for daring to make jokes about a stupid statement. I shall stay in silence for fear of triggering anyone.

3comment

4629

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

I doubt the remain camp would take it well if I said staying in the EU was about race-mixing, which is the converse claim to the one you made about British purity.

3comment

4630

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

What the hell are you talking about? It's a joke about a dumb statement. I wouldn't even care if the queen was a full on WW1 German stereotype spiked helmet and everything anyway. Making a joke at someones ignorance of how intertwined european royal families are and have always been is not quite the same as discussing racial purity theories is probably why people wouldn't react the same way.

3comment

4631

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

No. They are and should be loyal to The Crown. The Rule of Law matters most. It was created to restrain The Crown, and still does. A pity that it doesn't restrain Parliament. Canada and America have legislatures constrained by written, codified constitutions with human rights codes, and supreme courts with the power to review legislation and strike it down. In the UK, The Crown is the only real constraint on parliamentary tyranny and on tyranny of the majority. The Crown prevents a prime minister from declaring themselves Fuhrer after purging another party. Of course democracy matters, but constitutionalism, rule of law, civil liberties, and a system of checks and balances matter more. If the armed forces sided against The Crown, they would be guilty of perjury. Republicans in Parliament are already guilty of perjury. And even if The Crown exercised real power now, Parliament would still be stronger. Hanoverian Kings exercised deal power daily but were weaker than Parliament. Executive Constitutional Monarchy is as viable and stable as Ceremonial Constitutional Monarchy.

3comment

4632

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Sham Swedes?

3comment

4633

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

What august company you republicans keep. Murdoch and Sinn Fien.

3comment

4634

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

I meant that there will be some tolerance for the monarchy getting involved in politics but only to a point. Beyond that and Britain will become a Republic again.

3comment

4635

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

The Queen has the same role as a president in a parliamentary system, to ensure laws are constitutional. If a bill is clearly illegal, she is the last line of defence but she can't just refuse to sign a bill because she doesn't approve of it or doesn't like the direction the government is going.

3comment

4636

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Well if one will read such a vile excuse for a newspaper...

3comment

4637

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

British republicanism is probably the only camp where Sinn Fien and Oliver Crowmwell can possibly occupy the same space.

3comment

4638

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Yep but I doubt they will, any MP who pushed for it can expect Murdoch to crucify them for it. Although personally I think the apology should be the exact same size and place of the offending article. It would make papers thing twice before printing massive lies on their front page if they had to follow it up a week later with a retraction.

3comment

4639

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

> British Army But where does that leave us british lefities then?

3comment

4640

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

No, that's in Egypt.

3comment

4641

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5NOYpyfwWw

3comment

4642

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

No the Monarchy. The Aristocracy is different. Have you never read Aristotle?

3comment

4643

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Charles II probably had less power than Cromwell.

3comment

4644

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

It sure did with little Cleggy's denial.

3comment

4645

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Yes, but the newspaper proposing the idea lied about the chances of such a proposal ever happening in the self-regulated newspaper industry. They did apologise for this lie, but you might not have seen it as it was in tiny writing on page 57 below a pic of the Prime Minister photoshopped into a compromising situation with a pig.

3comment

4646

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

> who then went back to their company and wrote to all employees in Scotland In fairness I wish this was the way all corporate lobbying operated. Petition your employees who then petition government and vote in their own interests (while taking on board the company's views). --- Corporate political donations could work in a similar way. The amount of money a company was planning on donating gets divided up and each employee gets a 'campaign voucher' that they are free to give to any political party of their choosing. The company then petitions their employees on who they'd prefer the donations go to, why that party is better for the company and its employees, etc. And how the policies of that party will enable the company to grow, wages to rise, etc. Ultimately though the donations would be made anonymously by employees entirely at their own discretion after weighing their employer's arguments against their own views. ...Union donations would work in the exact same way.

3comment

4647

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

That's good.!

3comment

4648

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

And that would be fine if Junker were the leader of the largest party of MEPs and campaigned as their leader during the election. That would be transparency. Cameron trying to stop it is as much of a problem as any of the other leaders trying to support it. The point is that these decisions are taken far away from the electorate with zero accountability. I doubt the US population would be happy with their president being selected by all the state governors under the argument that any law has to be passed by the House anyway. This is not even close to democratic. FPTP for all its flaws at least is an election. Why are you supporting a system that diminishes the power of voters?

3comment

4649

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Well the US president is selected by the electoral college who do have the power to ignore the popular vote but obviously that is not really relevant. The EU is trying to make the election of the president more transparent. Bizarrely, it's the people who argue that the EU needs reform such as Cameron who oppose such changes. Also I support the EU because as an Irish citizen, I have seen directly the good it has done for my country. I also see real attempts to make the system fairer and more democratic through documents like the Lisbon treaty.

3comment

4650

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

But, if she thought it was important enough she could...

3comment

4651

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

That's not a bad idea actually. But as you say probably has less chance than a snowball in Hell.

3comment

4652

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

I don't think he's smart enough to realise that. We'll probably see the Republic during his reign.

3comment

4653

'Queen backs Brexit' - The Sun front page tomorrow

Just don't give another Cromwell the helm. He wasn't so nice to us over here in Ireland.

3comment

4654

Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD

I know the consensus is real, but I would like to specifically debunk the info in this particular article. I see that the quotes in the article are taken from a book about climate denial. Here are some links I usually use to support the consensus: https://skepticalscience.com/debunking-climate-consensus-denial.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

3comment

4655

Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD

[deleted]

3comment

4656

Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD

Ew

3comment

4657

Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD

Lol natural news. On a serious note, even if the 97% consensus is "bunk" the science is not. Edit: I'm going to expand on this a little more and explain why the science is not bunk: Firstly, we know that CO2 traps heat, it is a greenhouse gas just like methane and water vapour. The way these molecules trap heat is easy: they absorb the radiation, keep it then radiate it out in all directions. Other molecules then pick up this radiated heat and the cycles continues. The way this becomes a problem is due to positive feedback, which is a way of saying "something causes itself". Heating the atmosphere has another effect, heating up air allows for it to absorb more water vapour and since water vapour is a GHG, yeah you're seeing where this is going. The warmer the atmosphere gets, the more GHG's it can absorb and so on. Now where deniers get this wrong is the whole state of the CO2. Yes plants and trees absorb CO2, the issue is that this cycle (aptly named the Carbon Cycle) was in equalibium, the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere was equal to the amount leaving. Now it is not equal, the amount entering the atmosphere is far more than the total biomass can absorb and thus a net increase. I hope this clears up certain myths because the science of climate change is really not difficult to understand. (I'm a student in my 3rd year of environmental science with year 1 being mostly CC so AMA I guess?)

3comment

4658

Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD

This is the entire problem with using bandwagon fallacies as an argument for something. You end up arguing things that really shouldn't matter - it doesn't matter whether 2, 50 or 97% of scientists "endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming" - and arguing the percentage is a waste of time. If they want to argue against man made climate change they need to provide evidence that the climate isn't changing due to man's actions. Still - here we are. First thing I noticed was that it talks about one survey, when multiple have been conducted showing similar percentages, the wikipedia article you linked talks about Harris Interactive's survey of 489 randomly selected scientists, the 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters that looked at 11,944 abstracts - I believe there have been others. The site seems to ignore these. The other things that jump out at me are. > the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them “experts." Well no the researchers did not do that, those surveyed did - by publishing papers on climate change - it shouldn't be a surprise that out of 3,146 scientists only 79 of them were climate scientists... It's a poor way to decide if man made climate change is correct or not - but I don't think the poll claims that it is. > So if I send out an email survey to 1000 people, and then I hand-pick the 75 responses I like the best, then can I proclaim those results to be "settled science" too? Will Al Gore champion my cause and demand billions in reparations from first world nations on my behalf? No because it doesn't prove anything, nor is that an accurate description of what happened, nor should this (sadly it is) used to describe how correct anthropomorphic climate change is. So sure, if we ignore all other surveys that confirm the statistic - then this alone as a support for anthropomorphic climate change is weak, usefully there are other things supporting man made climate change other than one email poll.

3comment

4659

Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD

you would think this guy would know bunk when he sees it. look at all the bunk for sale on that page alone

3comment

4660

Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD

I got two sentences in and quit reading

3comment

4661

Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD

The linked article does have an element of truth in it, in that the statistic is often stated incorrectly. The [Doran (2009) study](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/eost2009EO03/epdf) found that 97% of those respondents with the greatest level of expertise in climate science agreed that "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures." The NaturalNews article seems to suggest that these respondents were cherry-picked to produce the desired result, but they represented those "who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change." This is naturally going to be a much smaller subset of scientists, but it includes those whose knowledge and expertise is arguably most relevant. This result is often shorthanded in public discourse to "97% of scientists agree," but that's not an issue of scientific fraud. The scientists explained it fully in their publication. It's also relevant (but not addressed in the NaturalNews article) that several independent studies have been done using different methods, and reached very similar conclusions. [This skepticalscience.com article](https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm) provides a good overview.

3comment

4662

Debunk this: The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD

Oh oh, Skeptoid did an episode about this recently! Another important thing to note is that we can tell the difference between carbon sources based on the amount of C14 isotopes they have. Since C14 is made in the atmosphere and likes to decay, things that are alive have proportions of C14 to C12 in line with the atmosphere, with some notable exceptions. Things that are dead lose their C14 as it decays to the more stable C12. Since the stuff we're concerned about is "fossil fuel", fuel derived from the remains of long-dead life forms, it has no remaining C14. We can check the proportion of our atmosphere composed of C14 to C12 and tell that the vast majority of added carbon in the CO2 is C12. The only other real source of massive amounts of C12 being pumped into the atmosphere is volcanoes, and we know how much CO2 they're pumping out. It's much less than the increase of CO2 we're experiencing, doesn't explain the increase.

3comment

4663

Did Eric Schneiderman Help NXIVM Sell Child Sex Slaves To The Clintons?

[Archive.is link](https://archive.is/2020/http://goodizen.com/did-eric-schneiderman-help-nxivm-sell-child-sex-slaves-to-the-clintons/) [Why this is here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7dvxxb/new_feature_automod_will_create_sticky_comments/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*

3comment

4664

Did Eric Schneiderman Help NXIVM Sell Child Sex Slaves To The Clintons?

SS: # Allegation emerged that Eric Schneiderman Helped NXIVM Sell Child Sex Slaves To The Clintons, but MSM denies that’s the case. Eric Scheiderman is a Democrat with known ties to the Clintons and the Soros. [Frankreport.com](https://frankreport.com/2018/05/07/girlfriend-beating-atty-gen-schneiderman-resigns-now-we-know-why-he-wouldnt-prosecute-raniere/): Eric Schneiderman Helped NXIVM Sell Child Sex Slaves To The Clintons [NYDailynews](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/no-nxivm-sex-cult-not-tied-bill-hillary-clinton-article-1.3971471): No, the NXIVM sex cult is not tied to Bill and Hillary Clinton Bombshell: Eric Schneiderman Was Funded By Soros. Schneiderman, a staunch pro\-Clinton advocate, [received hundreds of thousands of dollars](http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=efs_sch_report+p_filer_id=A21032+p_e_year=2017+p_freport_id=J+p_transaction_code=A) from Soros in order to secure his position in politics. What are the odds Eric Schneiderman helped NXIVM sell child Sex slaves to the Clintons?

0support

4665

Did Eric Schneiderman Help NXIVM Sell Child Sex Slaves To The Clintons?

sure,why not...i've bet on worse odds.

3comment

4666

Did Eric Schneiderman Help NXIVM Sell Child Sex Slaves To The Clintons?

Stormy Daniels involved? I’ve seen a. Few threads (all down voted to heck) about her allegedly having a nxivm brand. This cult could be a major linchpin to some big revelations Edit: my last comment was deleted Edit edit: my last comments were not deleted, so I deleted duplicates

3comment

4667

Did Eric Schneiderman Help NXIVM Sell Child Sex Slaves To The Clintons?

Did Trump let Putin assfuck him while he was bent over the Resolute Desk? I, too, can ask ridiculous questions with little to no evidence with which to back them up.

3comment

4668

Did Eric Schneiderman Help NXIVM Sell Child Sex Slaves To The Clintons?

That's valid conspiracy. Now that axxhole Trump has betray our security, I wouldn't be surprised he has been axxf\-\-ked all the way to his lung by Netanyahu. Go ahead to create a thick conspiracy on this ...

3comment

4669

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice** * Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted in **any** comment, parent or child. * Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * Report comments that violate these rules. Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead. Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*

3comment

4670

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

I can.

0support

4671

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

I can use both, but recently read that Stephen Fry has this issue of one working nostril at a time. Never knew most people are like this. Will be interesting to find out.

3comment

4672

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

I was always able to breath through both nostrils. I had quite extensive surgery on my nostrils a few years ago, but as I said: I usually always have/had both sides open.

3comment

4673

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

Idk I just tested it, seems wrong.

1deny

4674

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

Sounds like bull. It's your source someone down the pub?

1deny

4675

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

Most people have an alternating primary nostril to allow one a rest and moistening period. This is also why when you are sick and congested, the pressure will occasionally shift to the other side.

3comment

4676

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

This is not a topic that has come up, ever, but I also have never met anyone who mentioned being able to breathe through only one nostril either. I breathe through both, unless sometimes when I have a cold.

3comment

4677

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

To anyone that had surgery in an attempt to breathe through both nostrils, how did it go? Would you recommend the procedure to anyone else?

3comment

4678

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

I just tried and can breathe through both. Jokes on us eh?

3comment

4679

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

I've always had an issue with the "nasal cycle", it is quite frustrating. It will be interesting to see how many people can/cannot breathe through both nostrils.

3comment

4680

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

I can breath with both nostrils but the other one is a little weaker. The weaker one changes occasionally.

3comment

4681

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

I can breathe through both, but more odten i don't because my nose is basically constantly clogged because of allergies etc. But when i'm at the sea and the air is cleaner and saltier, i can normally breathe through both of them

3comment

4682

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

I was doing some research online as I was interested in how I could go about 'fixing' this said issue. However, it sounds like it's a common issue. Therefore I'm resulting to Reddit to get a better understanding of who can/cannot breathe through both nostrils.

3comment

4683

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

I can usually breath through both but I've had a sinus infection for like a month now and I can only breath through the right

3comment

4684

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

Glad to know I'm not the only one! I was doing some research about the issue that I have and it's to do with the "nasal cycle". Worth a read if you are interested.

3comment

4685

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

Did you just bamboozle us all? I breathe through both

3comment

4686

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

I have a severely deviated septum almost completely blocking one nostril, and I still breathe through both all the time.

3comment

4687

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

I definitely can use both. If I only could use one at a time I would litteraly not get enough air fast enough.

3comment

4688

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

Can you share the link, please?

3comment

4689

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

Wait what?? I thought I was one of the few cases who can breathe from 1 nostril. So basically you are saying I am on the majority side??

2query

4690

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

You tested the whole nation?

3comment

4691

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

No, I tested myself you dyngus. How about you? Can you? I think it's one of those bullshit stats.

1deny

4692

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

I breath from 1 only

3comment

4693

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

I can breathe with both nostrils, but don’t because I’ve been hit in my face so many times that only the left nostril can inhale, unless I’m putting my nose at a weird angle.

3comment

4694

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

TIL about myself. Only my right nostril seems to function.

3comment

4695

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

I've had sinus issues all of my life and just assumed it was easier for everone to breath though there mouth than their nose because, you know the bigger hole and all. Then after some reoccurring issues I finally had sinus surgery. OH, MY, GOD. It's like night and day. I can actually breath, it's ridiculous.

3comment

4696

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

It's not a bug, it's a feature. You definitely *want* your nostrils doing this. *Everyone* breathes this way. Everyone also occasionally breathes through both nostrils. It's part of the cycle. It isn't 85% of people, it's 15% of the time you're using both, half of the remainder the left, the other half the right. Time, not people.

3comment

4697

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

After some research, apparently so! Although I am dubious about the statistics that were coming through when I was researching, hence why I resorted to asking the question on Reddit.

3comment

4698

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

I breathe through both, and I'm thinking now that this might be why I constantly have dry nostrils and wake up with dry blood in my nose constsntly.

3comment

4699

[Serious] Is it true that 85% of people can only breath through one nostril at a time? Who here can breathe with both nostrils?

Yeah that's one of the things that popped up when I was researching my 'issue'. Regardless of the fact, being able to constantly breathe through both nostrils sounds like a luxury.

3comment