Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Some things are too cathartic to automate.

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 - RAFH

101
Dunno... Charles at his most likeable always struck me as a vaguely absentminded eccentric uncle that is really hard work if you sit next to him at family parties. At his most unlikeable he is horribly entitled and out of touch.  Not sure i'd pick him as a champion for any cause i cared about. But hey, better than nothing.
Certainly better than Bluffy.

Just imagine being stuck in an elevator with Bluffy.
102
This intelligence of the camouflage of plants and animals is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg of the intelligence of Nature. Intelligence manifests everywhere in Nature on planet Earth. You can see it everywhere if you simply look. 
The Problem is there is also so much STUPIDITY!
It's everywhere, you don't even have to look.
And, you, sucky, are a classic example of such.
103
Learning pennywhistle is right at the top of the list of signs of depression.
Just thinking about it depresses me.
104
I thought Americans were supposed to be unimpressed by such things as being a "king".
I am American and am pretty unimpressed with kings.
Kings, the original mafia.
105
So is citing Prince Charles's endorsement a valid or fallacious Appeal to Authority in your humble opinion Hawkins?
Neither

You really should study up on the appeal to Authority thing.

Wrong!
It's the fallacious one.
Charles is not any kind of authority on land management.
Dave's not citing Charles as an authority.

He's lording a predicted expansion in the use of HMG by the British crown over us unbelievers.
I'm just saying that (King) Charles is probably a more visible sales guy for holistic management than say... Dave Hawkins.
So is citing Prince Charles's endorsement a valid or fallacious Appeal to Authority in your humble opinion Hawkins?
Neither

You really should study up on the appeal to Authority thing.

Wrong!
It's the fallacious one.
Charles is not any kind of authority on land management.
Dave's not citing Charles as an authority.

He's lording a predicted expansion in the use of HMG by the British crown over us unbelievers.
I'm just saying that (King) Charles is probably a more visible sales guy for holistic management than say... Dave Hawkins.
This (retrospective) rationalization for why you posted that does not strike me as even slightly credible.
The only thing credible about this "(retrospective) rationalization for why [Bluffy] posted" is it's Bluffy that posted it.
106
OK, here's the deal, them Cannucks been foolin' us all along into thinkin' they's a polite and nice-nice. All just a plot to lullin' us 'Merkins inta thinkin' they's no threat. An' then, when wur not ready and not lookin' they'll strike, without warning or nuttin'.

Here's the real deal: https://boingboing.net/2018/06/14/canadian-border-authorities-ho.html, eh?
107
Quote
The "quantum vacuum" is simply the name that scientists give for a domain not visible to the senses. And in fact they even get off on the wrong foot because it is not a vacuum but a plenum. If you wish to ignore that domain that is of course your call. Continue to try to shoehorn reality into explanations that demand that reality only be what we can sense with our senses.
The invisible domain called the quantum vacuum (actually quantum plenum) is not visible to the senses. You folks ignore it and restrict your explanations to the part visible to the senses. So be it.
You folks have become tedious.
No no, sucky. You're confused. You've got it backwards. Looking in the wrong end of the telescope or binoculars sort of thing. Really need to have that checked, sooner than later.
108
So is citing Prince Charles's endorsement a valid or fallacious Appeal to Authority in your humble opinion Hawkins?
Neither

You really should study up on the appeal to Authority thing.

If that's the case, why did you bring Charles up?
109
Yes, Dave.

He's been "going to be king" since 1952.
Well apparently there has been some uncertainty about that.

http://www.newsweek.com/will-charles-be-king-prince-philip-has-little-confidence-his-sons-abilities-858453

But now it appears that the uncertainty has been resolved.

Which of course was my point.

Which of course you guys missed.

And then proceeded to pile on lambasting me wrongly ... All because you misunderstood.

In other words, ssdd at tr.
How was this point, as explained above, related to whether or not UnSavory is an authority on anything?
110
But yes, I do realize that this does not mean that holistic management will suddenly happen all over the world once he becomes king.

Dorks.
But do you realize that all Charles had to do is get conceived by Elizabeth and Mountbatten?
111
'Socrates' needs to learn some basic logic (ironically)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
Wouldn't he need a functioning brain to do that?
112
Except terms like 'snap-offy' are very imprecise. You know what else is 'snap-offy'? Juicy live celery. Live twigs. Many flowering stems. And all kinds of other things, both live and non-live, and not at all indicative of dry or fragile, though some dry fragile things are indeed 'snap-offy'.

People use words (that you don't understand because you've never cared to) because precise words better describe real things, Dave.

Your RSPL is just that: people using precise language that is least likely to be misinterpreted by other readers.
I was pretty sure this schoolmarm lecture was coming.

Too bad whoever you did have for a 'schoolmarm' failed miserably at teaching you all the things other people, for the most part, know by the time they've grown up.
Can you imagine that dave likely believes people take him seriously?
Absolutely. Most certainly that he believes that.
And in real life, there are people that would take him seriously, look at who we have for a President.
113
Dave got nearly everything in the article wrong. It's not entirely his fault - the article gets several things wrong by implication - but even what the article gets right, Dave gets wrong.

It's impressive, really.
That's our Bluffy.

We could put him up against the best twits Russia or China have and know with great certainty he'll triumph.
114
Welp ... Prince Charles is officially going to become the King of England ...

https://www.purewow.com/news/queen-elizabeth-prince-charles-successor?utm_source=zergnet&utm_medium=syndication





And... he likes Allan Savory ... here's a YouTube of him endorsing Savory ...

https://youtu.be/EsmhTACrfOk
Bluffy, there's a reason Elizabeth has waited so long request Charles be recognized as her heir, with regard to the throne. You might want to think about what that reason is.
115
Awww...
Poor Dave!
Pointing out the Walter Mitty nature of his plans, or the preachiness of his continuous stream of unsupported assertions is...

being a dick!

How about you deal with the questions:

How about you go fuck yourself?

People with PhDs like you and that other person who I can't name now because it will be deemed harrasment ...

ARE the problem in our world today.

Funny. I see people like you as the most pressing issue ATM.
That's because you don't understand Nature.
:stare:

You know, part of me wanted to write a satire. It would comment on modern western societies by showing a group of people whose healthy skepticism of politicians and other technocrats rapidly morphs into a collective throwing the objective or scientific baby out with the bath water as torrents of facts erode all their certainties, and leads to them finally opting to just believe the last thing they liked on the internet in stead.

Totally ruined, that plan. Whenever I try to think of any character, I just see Dave now.
Then use dave. I'm sure he won't mind.
Hey, Vivisectus, did you want to write a comedy? With Bluffy as your primary character, it'd be difficult to stifle all aspects of humor from the story.
116
It seems that there is no such thing as different biomes. There is just one single eco-system, which is basically rural Missouri. It is just that folks have let it go a bit, to different extents in different areas, and they need Dave to show them how to fix it with cows.
 
Africa is basically rural Missouri that is a bit warmer and dryer, with lions in, what people have messed up. With lots of cows, you could just turn it into it's natural state of being rural Missouri, only with zebras instead of deer.

The Sahara desert is what happens if you take a rural Missouri and really mess it up, through agriculture. Again, the answer is lots of cows: if we just did that it would be rural Missouri again in no time because rural Missouri gets plenty of rain.

If you take rural Missouri and make it a bit colder and put moose in, then you basically get Canada.

Then there is the rural Missouri that got really wet and warm and that just has too many damn trees, and those are the rainforests. Here, you just cut some of the trees down before you add the cows and hey presto! Rural Missouri again in no time, though possibly a bit warmer and wetter.

Almost everywhere just needs to be more rural Missouri, so you get more ecosystem for all the animals that live in rural Missouri. This is called "healing the land". Pretty soon, everyone will realize this because of Dave's tireless and highly effective research and activism, and then the whole world will basically be rural Missouri, with the possible exception of the poles.
No but it would be nice to have LIFE on all Land surfaces wherever possible.  Wouldn't you agree? Or would you prefer that places like West Texas become more like the Sahara? that is, pretty lifeless. Kind of like a moonscape.
LIFE is on all land surfaces wherever possible. The Sahara is not pretty lifeless, nor is West Texas.
Both of them are pretty lifeless relative to Missouri. Why don't you try comparing weight of biomass per acre in a place like the Sahara Desert versus Missouri?

Go on.

:popcorn:
Why would that be important to do? Yeah, one's a temperature savanah while the other is a desert. That's based simply on the rainfall.

Why would it even be necessary to convert deserts and rain forests (both tropical and temperate), boreal forests, wet lands, high plateau, bare rock, etc, to pasture (assuming that's actually possible and feasible) when we waste 40% of what's grown and there's a good portion of perfectly good agricultural land that is left fallow not to mention how much gets covered over each year with new construction.

There's also that whole thing about animal husbandry producing about 20% of the calories and using about 80% of the ag land while plant agriculture produces 80% of the calories on only 20% of the land. As previously noted, cutting the land used by animal husbandry by half (leaving animals to continue to produce 10% of the calories), and using that land for plant produce would increase that production by 2/3rds. For an illustration, given the total ag land for food production is 100 land units and animal husbandry using 80 of those to produce 20 food units, while plants are using 20 land units to produce 80 food units, if you cut back on animals to 40 land units and 10 food units, plants will have 60 land units and produce 240 food units. Before we get 100 food units for 100 land units, after we get 250 food units for 100 land units. Seems to me like a 150% increase in food produced on the same land is the way to go.

Looking at the waste situation, we'd actually have animals producing 12 food units on 80 land units with plants producing 48 food units on 20 land units for a total of 60 food units. Cutting waste in half would, after reallocating land to plant production, yield 6 animal food units and 192 plant food units for a total of 198 food units. It's still a 150% increase over the current post waste total and nearly twice what was being produced previously pre-waste.
117
Look I'm a bit new to the "brittleness" thing myself .
Maybe you should reserve judgment, then, on whether 2/3 of the earth's land surface falls in this category, and requires billions more cattle to "restore" it to health.
It's hard to believe that you actually managed to earn a PhD. Maybe you didn't and you've been bagging us all this time.

That statement was a legitimate Appeal to Authority. Allan Savory is the world's leading Authority On Land Management.

You do know what a legitimate Appeal to Authority is don't you?

You mean the type of fallacy?
No. You need to go read up on this. There is indeed a fallacy called argument from Authority but there is also a legitimate argument from Authority. the former is when the supposed Authority is not really an authority At all. The latter is when he is an actual authority.
But we have only your claim that UnSavory is an authority on the subject. Real Authorities, at least in science, are not proclaimed, certainly not by themselves or their disciples, but by the scientific world at large, via consensus, generally based upon the work they've done.
UnSavory hasn't published much in the literature.
UnSavory has specifically stated his "work" can not be analyzed by science. We just have to take his word for it.
118
Except terms like 'snap-offy' are very imprecise. You know what else is 'snap-offy'? Juicy live celery. Live twigs. Many flowering stems. And all kinds of other things, both live and non-live, and not at all indicative of dry or fragile, though some dry fragile things are indeed 'snap-offy'.

People use words (that you don't understand because you've never cared to) because precise words better describe real things, Dave.

Your RSPL is just that: people using precise language that is least likely to be misinterpreted by other readers.
I was pretty sure this schoolmarm lecture was coming.
She (or should I say "they") was probably a manipulative bitch as well. Maybe even an octohatter.
119
It seems that there is no such thing as different biomes. There is just one single eco-system, which is basically rural Missouri. It is just that folks have let it go a bit, to different extents in different areas, and they need Dave to show them how to fix it with cows.
 
Africa is basically rural Missouri that is a bit warmer and dryer, with lions in, what people have messed up. With lots of cows, you could just turn it into it's natural state of being rural Missouri, only with zebras instead of deer.

The Sahara desert is what happens if you take a rural Missouri and really mess it up, through agriculture. Again, the answer is lots of cows: if we just did that it would be rural Missouri again in no time because rural Missouri gets plenty of rain.

If you take rural Missouri and make it a bit colder and put moose in, then you basically get Canada.

Then there is the rural Missouri that got really wet and warm and that just has too many damn trees, and those are the rainforests. Here, you just cut some of the trees down before you add the cows and hey presto! Rural Missouri again in no time, though possibly a bit warmer and wetter.

Almost everywhere just needs to be more rural Missouri, so you get more ecosystem for all the animals that live in rural Missouri. This is called "healing the land". Pretty soon, everyone will realize this because of Dave's tireless and highly effective research and activism, and then the whole world will basically be rural Missouri, with the possible exception of the poles.
No but it would be nice to have LIFE on all Land surfaces wherever possible.  Wouldn't you agree? Or would you prefer that places like West Texas become more like the Sahara? that is, pretty lifeless. Kind of like a moonscape.
Why would it be nice?
For what purpose?
I don't know that West Texas is becoming more like the Sahara though it's obviously adjacent to desert lands and it gets relatively low rainfall. As for your characterization of lifely, it's not clear as to whether you are referring to West Texas or the Sahara, but I'm pretty sure there's a lot of life there. That you don't recognize life unless it has milk squirting out of it is not a problem for reality.
120
Why do we want to use specialized language? Could it possibly be the same motivation that the medieval Popes and Cardinals and priests had?

Hmmm ...
No, it's to be as precise as possible. The point is to communicate and to do so clearly. Of course, the material is primarily intended for adults with the relevant education, training and/or experience, which, of course, leaves you out.
121
Sucky is incapable of distinguishing a difference between those two terms.
122
"It clearly shows how little animal diversity is left, a diversity that is shrinking daily."

Relax.

500 million years from now all that diversity will be restored. It's inevitable!

Just ask Darwin.

Or Voxrat and Pingu.
You could not be stupider. You are a parody of yourself.
Calm down. It was a joke.
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I don't think the cataclysmic decline in biodiversity reflected in that graphic is a laughing matter.  I don't think anyone here but you does.

Depending on how many facets of fundamentalist teachings Dave actually includes in his personal belief system, I can sort of see where his 'joke' comes from. We know he's a young earth creationist, believes Noah's Flood actually happened in recent times, certainly believes the earth was made for humans, but idk if he believes humans are meant to 'use up the earth'*. as some do. If he does, from that point of view, the extinction of life except humans and their livestock would be of no concern to him, therefore amusing that other people find that pov grotesque.

*To be fair to fundies, I've only rarely seen people espouse this belief, and most of them were members of the Rapture Ready forums, and not all were in agreement.
I absolutely do not believe that humans are meant to use up the Earth. Do you think I would be doing what I'm doing on my 10 acres if I believed that?



I'm glad to hear it.

But yes, if you believed as I described, you wouldn't care about anything but feeding humans through the end times and would not care about other animals.

You must see, though, that your attitudes toward wildlife are very blasé and certainly appear deliberately ignorant and uncaring.

You never answered my question about Savory and game hunting, btw.
No my attitudes towards wildlife are very good.  Allan Savory and I like wildlife more than most people and the proof that we do is our actions to help save their habitats.  Lions and tigers don't do very well in the Sahara Desert so we'd like to try to keep the rest of Africa from becoming like the Sahara.  If we could achieve the unthinkable and actually re-green the entire Sahara - putting it back the way it was a few thousand years ago, then wildlife would be in great shape.  (Except of course the extinct species) (Which will re-evolve according to Darwin given enough time) (Time ... the Magic Potion!)

And yes, you read that right ... Savory does make money from hunting leases on his land.  Game is plentiful there because HMG attracts game.  He told about this in that documentary I linked.


And there you go. 'Regreening' the Sahara would destroy an entire unique biome of mammals, reptiles, insects, plants. That would be destroying a habitat.
Well I suppose.  But only in the same way that restoring an old rusty junk car is "destroying a unique artifact." 

Unless you're going to let the lions eat the cows, I don't see your solution.
Not the cows, but the WILD herbivores, yes.

It sounds a LOT like Savory's ranches lure dwindling wildlife in search of food and water from their shrinking habitats. And then he gets people to pay him to kill them. How is that helping anything but Savory?
Obviously killing endangered wildlife would be bad and would be against Zimbabwe's laws.  I'm sure Savory doesn't do that.  Are you against hunting generally?

You and Savory only talk about creating more and more grass to feed cows. That is more and more habitat unavailable to wildlife.
No.  More and more grass makes more wildlife habitat.

You, and Savory as well, by all outward measurements seem completely uncaring regarding wildlife. Otherwise you wouldn't want to add another billion cows to the planet.
No.  You don't understand what Savory does.  His work makes life better for everyone - domestic animals, wild animals, humans, soil life - everything.

It's just there's no data supporting that claim.
123
"It clearly shows how little animal diversity is left, a diversity that is shrinking daily."

Relax.

500 million years from now all that diversity will be restored. It's inevitable!

Just ask Darwin.

Or Voxrat and Pingu.
You could not be stupider. You are a parody of yourself.
Calm down. It was a joke.
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I don't think the cataclysmic decline in biodiversity reflected in that graphic is a laughing matter.  I don't think anyone here but you does.

Depending on how many facets of fundamentalist teachings Dave actually includes in his personal belief system, I can sort of see where his 'joke' comes from. We know he's a young earth creationist, believes Noah's Flood actually happened in recent times, certainly believes the earth was made for humans, but idk if he believes humans are meant to 'use up the earth'*. as some do. If he does, from that point of view, the extinction of life except humans and their livestock would be of no concern to him, therefore amusing that other people find that pov grotesque.

*To be fair to fundies, I've only rarely seen people espouse this belief, and most of them were members of the Rapture Ready forums, and not all were in agreement.
I absolutely do not believe that humans are meant to use up the Earth. Do you think I would be doing what I'm doing on my 10 acres if I believed that?



I'm glad to hear it.

But yes, if you believed as I described, you wouldn't care about anything but feeding humans through the end times and would not care about other animals.

You must see, though, that your attitudes toward wildlife are very blasé and certainly appear deliberately ignorant and uncaring.

You never answered my question about Savory and game hunting, btw.
No my attitudes towards wildlife are very good.  Allan Savory and I like wildlife more than most people and the proof that we do is our actions to help save their habitats.  Lions and tigers don't do very well in the Sahara Desert so we'd like to try to keep the rest of Africa from becoming like the Sahara.  If we could achieve the unthinkable and actually re-green the entire Sahara - putting it back the way it was a few thousand years ago, then wildlife would be in great shape.  (Except of course the extinct species) (Which will re-evolve according to Darwin given enough time) (Time ... the Magic Potion!)

And yes, you read that right ... Savory does make money from hunting leases on his land.  Game is plentiful there because HMG attracts game.  He told about this in that documentary I linked.

Another great illustration of Bluffy's children's version of evolution.

Wow, UnSavory sells wildlife. What a wonderful guy.

At about 50# per elephant and a current price of about $330/#, and 40,000 elephants, that's current value of $660,000,000. Couldn't find a price from the 70s but even if it were half that's still over $300,000,000. I've always wondered who got all that money.
124
"It clearly shows how little animal diversity is left, a diversity that is shrinking daily."

Relax.

500 million years from now all that diversity will be restored. It's inevitable!

Just ask Darwin.

Or Voxrat and Pingu.
You could not be stupider. You are a parody of yourself.
Calm down. It was a joke.
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I don't think the cataclysmic decline in biodiversity reflected in that graphic is a laughing matter.  I don't think anyone here but you does.
You misunderstood the target of my laughter. My laughter is not at the loss of biodiversity which, as you say, and I agree, is no laughing matter. 
No, I didn't misunderstand anything. I noted you making a stupid joke instead of grappling with the very serious issue of biodiversity collapsing, and your dumb ideas exacerbating that problem.
Quote
The target of my laughter is darwinists ...
Like Allan Savory?
Like Mark Shepard?

You just never get tired of stepping on that rake, do you?


Bluffy has an invisible rake tractor that he walks around in. It ensures he always has a rake fresh from the manure pile to interact with.
125

Quote
Not only are they intelligent in design but wonderfully executed/engineered.
There is wonderful material here about the engineering of trichomes:
https://www.leafly.ca/news/cannabis-101/what-are-trichomes-on-cannabis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichome

The defense mechanisms employed by plants and animals are called intelligent when employed by humans.
That's because humans employ them intentionally. Not as a direct result of random mutation and natural selection.