Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Home of the shitty TR Memescape

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages -

For that claim to be true, there would have to be no herbivores in that particular location. And if there are not any, then of course this system will not work. Again it only works where herbivores already exist in a particular location.

But there are! I told you that pasture has supported cows and horses. But definitely not by bunching them up. It would destroy the pasture in no time flat. Listen,  a 25 kilo kid can create a mini-bog there in 20 minutes of stomping around in the spring.
That's 1
2 - not all soils will support grasses etc appropriate for feed.
3 - short season areas
I just refuted 1 in my previous post.  2 - IF the herbivores are there now, they are eating something, 3 - again, if herbivores can survive there now, then they will survive even better under HMG

Actually no. That wasn't a refutation. It was merely a counter claim, based on an assumption - that equal traffic per area per day is equivalent, that's probably false.

As an actual refutation, let's take your argument, 10 cattle per acre, and 1/10th of a day, and push it a bit further. Let's say 200 cattle per acre for 1/200th of a day. Basically this would be like driving a herd of cattle across a clay drumlin. 200 cattle in an area of an acre, for 7 minutes.

Well, that would likely trash the place pretty well.

So, while the traffic per area per day would be the same between the three scenarios, the results would be quite different. Therefore, you're missing something.
Dave has to be confused. Reality will smack him upside the head otherwise.
Chess with a pigeon.

So, having been told that snipping just a bit of the post that he liked while ignoring the main argument is dishonest, Dave goes and does exactly that again.
I suspect the reason that Dave has taken to not quoting posts, but using creative paraphrases instead is because he's been caught quote mining so much.

FFS, you advocate for that behaviour on your blog, Dave.
Bullshit. I never quote mine people.

I would like to see your side become honest and admit that you don't have any explanation. Just as you don't have any explanation for how life got started on Earth. Just as you don't have any explanation for the origin of diversity of species.

That's two absolute corkers in just over a day, plus his pathetic attempt to label me a liar.

Do you think Dave will retract his accusation against me. :D
I have a photo of some in Australia if you want.
I guess you MIGHT fairly accuse Martin of quote-mining.

But then....

best not go there I think

Yeah, that doesn't work either. The context hasn't changed. It's not like Dave actually wrote the he thought goats could sometimes climb trees.  The obvious interpretation of Dave's post is that Dave doesn't think goats can climb trees (cos his don't).
Note that my original wording has exactly the same meaning as Martin's suggestion.  Exactly.  No difference. 

So Martin's response ...
Quote from: on Yesterday at 03:15:36 AM
Lol at "goats can't climb trees".

in ironic syncopation with:

"MORE scientific and MORE factual than me."

was a subtle lie which is the most common type of lie I see around here ... he's basically saying "Dave is dumb because he doesn't know that there ARE some goats that DO climb trees" ...

Which is false and he knows it's false because he admitted to seeing my 5 second later edit.


It's ok.  Not the end of the world.  Everyone lies some.  But the only way to start lying less is to realize that we all do in fact lie.

I'm disappointed you didn't include my final post on the topic, with an additional example of why your post was ambiguous and silly. My reading was a perfectly valid, and, I suspect, probably the most logical reading of what you wrote.
And what about if a 'teacher' is told that what they are teaching is wrong with complete refutation, and they ignore that, and a few weeks later try and 'teach' the same thing, in spite of knowing that it is wrong?
What is it when:
"teaching involves things that people don't know where the teacher takes people from ignorance to knowledge in gradual steps, but the teacher's idea of 'knowledge' is stuff that is wrong, ill-concieved, at odds with reality, self contradictory, based on ignorance, and where the deciding criteria of whether it's true or false is not any objective or logical reasoning, but simply whether the teacher wants it to be true"?
My edit was in place well before Martin's post. There is no question he either ignored it or his lying. Most likely the latter.
You do realize that a person works on their post before posting it, and if they're quoting someone else, their post will contain a pre-edited version?

It has happened to me repeatedly and I had missed edits in many posts, including yours. So it's "most likely" that your slandering fingers move faster than your brain.

Nope. I saw his edit.
However, what Dave has missed, which I explained quite thoroughly in my post, is that his post was ambiguous. An alternative and possible more logical reading is that Dave doesn't think goats can climb trees, because his can't. Given his general well rounded ignorance, assuming that Dave doesn't realise that goats climb things, including trees, is hardly a leap.

I even suggested a simple improvement to Dave that would remove the ambiguity.

eg: "All cats are black. At least mine are" - What does this mean? Does it mean "I think all cats are black, but I'm leaving it open to the possibility that some aren't?", because that's the obvious meaning. It certainly doesn't translate to "not all cats are black, but mine are".

You can't claim someone is lying because they drew a fairly reasonable conclusion from your ambiguous post, and then contrasted it with your request for people to be "MORE scientific and MORE factual than me." People are allowed to laugh and poke fun at gibberish.
Preaching vs teaching is probably indistinguishable if you're ineducable and wilfully ignorant. It's no surprise Dave can't tell the difference.

You can do better.

Well, yes. I already fixed your post for you, and explained how you can make it unambiguous.

So now you can retract your "liar" claim.

Or is that the best you can manage?
And I'm realizing more and more every day that people who live in an ALT fact bubble have to lie. They have no choice.

LOL at Goats can't climb trees. Dave such a ninny. He doesn't realize that some goats do climb trees.

Why are you such a liar, Martin? Is that all you got? I probably saw that picture 5 years ago and we discussed it here. What I said is that MY goats can't climb trees.


Is one of the biggest problems in our world today.

I also saw Pingu's note.  - "1 I see you hastily added this.↵"

Would you like to know how to word that sentence so that it isn't ambiguous, because  you could also mean that 1) you think goats can't climb trees, 2) based on your experience with your goats, which, given your remarkable ignorance about much of the world would hardly be surprising.

Try this "'s better than letting them browse on their own because my goats can't climb trees".


Feel free to retract your "liar" accusation, Dave.  :P
Lol at "goats can't climb trees".

in ironic syncopation with:

"MORE scientific and MORE factual than me."

And Dave dug like no man had dug before!!! :D
I know a couple of people do, and I never bothering remembering who.
WTF? Is that real?

It is real, and apparently hilariously bad. By trying to remove women from roles of any importance, they've also destroyed most of the male characters' arcs.
Apologies if you don't like Pharyngula, but PZ summarises it nicely.
And Dave digs like no man has dug before!!!