35 People Are Sharing The Craziest And Most Disturbing Stats They Know

we do a little trolling

There's only a little time left. Be careful.

Good!

Not really. Shows how little people know or understand the creationism.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Plants appear at 12:03AM, fish and birds at 12:05AM, land animals at 12:06AM, and humans at 12:06.30AM

"But a Watch in the Night": A Scientific Fable, by James C Rettie, for the National Forest Service, 1948.

So are vending machines.

Thank the movie Jaws, for that.

...and wrongfully vilified.

cos we don't speak shark, naturally.

Agree, thanks to hollywood movies that didn't do their research

100% amazing creatures

And quite beautiful 🦈

That´s why i love sharks but hate small stingy poisonous animals lol

Now I can hear Rubeus Hagrid saying that lol

You are also more likely to be attacked by a pigeon in Boston than you are to be attacked by a dog.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

No its due to the fact that most people are more likely to be either in new york city or near a vending machine than a shark.

Maybe for SyFy.

*udders. "Utters" means "does say".

It might, but not the sort of movie I'd want to see

Also people don't tend to kick and shake sharks in the hope that snacks fall out (statistics need context to be meaningful)

Will do!

Self-reported. That means the real number is astronomical

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Unfortunately what happens when a religion have their priests sworn to clerical celibacy :-(

I just want to say I'm so sorry. And thank you for bringing this gruesome history to this thread. It was the first thing I thought of when I read this post. All those children stollen from their families and forced to not only confirm, but were also violated and many times murdered. Let us not forget.

I'm sorry that this happened. But wasn't it Canadian government that organised the residential school system? Why didn't they make inspection to check what's going on there? I totally get why people are upset at church for this, but why is the government getting free pass? Sorry, but I can't help but to wonder about this.

Yes. It was very bad in this country. Everyones parents, aunts and uncles have these stories. Beaten, shamed, just for existing. The magdalene laundries were the worst. Forced to do back breaking labour 7 days a week then their children were stolen from them and sold to rich foreigners abroad. By priests and nuns. Shocking. Mass childrens graves are still being unearthed.

Terilee, exactly what I came here to say. My friend went through this, and the effect this has on his life, his health, his family, etc.?! I don't understand how people can do horrible things like this at all

*More empty houses. There's a difference, a home is a concept of safety that comes from the life outside and inside that structure. A homeless person doesn't just need walls and a roof, they need proper jobs, medical care, education etc.

I mean…people have extra rooms in the house so should it be given to homeless? Would you do that? People go out on vacations…how about leave it open for others. An empty house is a property that someone owns. I am fine with government programs for homeless but to say that someone’s empty home should be given to homeless is a straight up theft.

Policy idea that will never happen: person buys first house at market cost. Person buys second house 2x the market cost. Half goes to seller, half goes to the local government earmarked for low income housing and community investment. Person buys third house at 3x market price, etc. As such fewer people would be buying multiple properties as "investment" because it's cost prohibitive. Meaning there are more houses on the market available and so because of supply and demand the market price will drop. Making more homes available so people can live where they want, close to family, friends and work. Having fewer empty homes means a denser population, which means more people paying taxes, so the government can afford to invest in the community and having more people in the area to spend their money would mean more jobs. Win, win, win. Except if you're rich and you make your money off of your "investments" or their rent.

IDK foxxy. Define empty? You go away on a 6 month round the world holiday- would you like a random person moving into your home, even if they were homeless? It's a hard rule to define what an "empty" house is

A large percentage of our luxury apartments sit empty. They rather have it empty then filled with lower income people.

Empty, not unowned. Some people have more than one house.

Which then, ironically, can get them housing in the form of a prison cell. I often wonder if there are nashycab documents outlining how the Victorian Era workhouses can be reinstated to "fix the homeless issue"

Australia still, I believe, has squatters rights, they need to stick to the rule for squatters to claim them.

I’m writing a speech on this so I can get on the debate team. I will send myself the link and post it once it’s finished

This comment has been deleted.

Not can, will. It's a crime everywhere in the world.

Doesn't change the statistical accuracy of this fact.

You're someone who gets it.