Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational > Discussion > Politics and Current Affairs > And what did the princess do that was so horrible?

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 160991 times) previous topic - next topic

Sea Star, Alfonso Bivouac, JonF, Dave Hawkins and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31675
Here's another one related to this thread... A couple years ago borealis said something to the effect that my straw floor was dangerous and that it would catch on fire if hot coals fell on it. I suspected that this was just propaganda motivated by the fact that Borealis doesn't like me so she tries to make me look stupid. But how do I tell for sure if it's propaganda or not? Again... As you have stated... By observation. Well what's the best way to observe in this case? Well by pouring live coals directly onto the straw floor, that's how. And guess what happened? Virtually nothing. The floor did not catch on fire. So Borealis statement was pure propaganda, nothing more. Proven so by observation.

I placed a glowing coal on some straw and it caught fire in about 5 seconds.  What does that tell us then Dave?

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31676
Here's another one related to this thread... A couple years ago borealis said something to the effect that my straw floor was dangerous and that it would catch on fire if hot coals fell on it. I suspected that this was just propaganda motivated by the fact that Borealis doesn't like me so she tries to make me look stupid. But how do I tell for sure if it's propaganda or not? Again... As you have stated... By observation. Well what's the best way to observe in this case? Well by pouring live coals directly onto the straw floor, that's how. And guess what happened? Virtually nothing. The floor did not catch on fire. So Borealis statement was pure propaganda, nothing more. Proven so by observation.

Your thinker is completely borked, Dave.

A straw floor with a wood stove IS dangerous. And the longer you used a wood stove with a straw floor, the drier your straw would become, and the more likely a stray spark or ember would smoulder long enough to start a fire. That, buddy, is a fact. It's also a fact that I don't want you to die in a fire for real. Which is why I nagged you about your chimney and advised you on better woodstove management.
We just moved back into our house after almost a year.

First a small fire in the wall around the chimney. After 40+ years the framing was so dry it ignited from the heat from the chimney.

Then asbestos in the popcorn ceilings and wallboard joint compound.

Then months of the moronic insurance company's adjuster, way out of his depth, trying get us to accept a quote riddled with errors and omissions.

Then the insurance company sat on a quote from a real contractor for a month.

Then three months of rebuilding.

One test of flammability in one situation cannot be generalized.

(The house is awesome, much better than before. Especially an all-new kitchen and foam insulation in most of the house. Can you tell which part still has fiberglass?)

"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31677
Ok. How about just explaining how to spot propaganda. Are there any tell tale signs that you're experiencing propaganda? Easy ways to recognize it?
I'll give you an example related to the topic of this thread. Commercial grain and dairy goats.  Almost everyone I know who owns Dairy goats says that you have to give them grain to keep them healthy. Propaganda? Or truth? How do we tell? By observation, just as you stated. Well guess what my observations have been over the past two years? They have been that this idea about Dairy goats and Grains is a myth. Propaganda. And it makes sense because grain is something you have to BUY which of course makes it in the interest of the people who sell it to promote the myth. See how that works?
I'm not really sure you've isolated the only important factor through that sort of logic. I mean, milk production is one of those pretty observable sorts of things. BTW, are your milk goats the type where the tips of their tails is bald(ish)?
I didn't say I have isolated the only important factor. I said that I've determined the "dairy goats need grain" schtick to be a myth. And I did so by observation, which includes observation of milk output.
So you think it's a myth promulgated by feed stores?
higher up than just the store level, but yes.
testy, why are you changing the subject?
I'm not.
You have called a lot of public agricultural information "propaganda".

I too, believe that there is a substantial amount of effort and resources being spent on propaganda and also on lobbying and legislation like the ag gag laws, relaxing pollution standards and measuring methodology to disguise the point sources of agricultural runoff wherever possible, big ag working to manipulate the focus of university research departments through grants and propaganda as well as more coercive methods whenever possible, all with the most important ends being profit and one of the most obvious means to that end being massive consolidation in the industry and control of the market. You don't even need to be a conspiracy theorist to believe all that because it's already documented.

But I also have quite a bit of experience actually working inside 'the system' and have a pretty good idea of the actual channels of information, the targets, the politics, and other details that inform my understanding of where propaganda comes from, what forms it usually takes, and how 'the system' deals with it. People buy food because they need to eat. People also buy toilets because they need toi poop. People also pay for electricity, water, phone, and internet service among many other things. Government and private institutions also buy things. Some goals require things in order to pursue. A tarp house requires tarps. Tarps are a product made by a business at a profit for people who need tarps. Of course, it's possible for some people to raise their own food, poop in a bucket, and do without all the modern conveniences. Advertising - businesses trying to entice you to buy stuff - is an effort to make you want their product. There are several ways this is done. Usually it involves hooking you with something memorable that defines a problem and associates that problem with one of the short list of basic wants - to be liked, to be safe, to eat good food, to be successful, to be attractive, to take vacations/work less (I might have missed one, it's been a few years) - and trying to "position" a brand in your mind as the click-whirr solution to meeting that want through one of a very short list of visualization techniques. This is one aspect of media literacy that it very important. When we want some specific brand, it is almost never that it really is the best solution to the need or even that we would really want it if we thought about it dispassionately. Cool Ranch Doritos, for example, are disgusting to anyone who eats one with no idea what it is. But the advertising somehow makes it palatable and even creates cravings in some people who learn to associate the actual product with the image of the product and the satisfaction of the want they probably wouldn't have ever thought to satisfy that particular way had the product been offered in a woven basket with no label and only samples as advertising. Recognizing that we are being told to want through subtle psychological means is not recognition of a conspiracy though. It's media literacy in a hyper-competitive, consumerist, capitalist society. That may not be the optimal society, but it's the one we have and there is nothing nefarious about the method of product messaging we call advertising. We should understand it so that we can be somewhat aware we are being manipulated and take that into account when we set our priorities. At the edges of that process, there are actually dishonest claims which attract buyers under actually dishonest pretenses. To some degree, truth in advertising laws curb the most egregious of these abuses, but it's not a bad idea to investigate claims that sound too good to be true. Some of them are. But still, that isn't a conspiracy. The more subtle advertising like product placement in movies and news shows blurs the boundary a little by not giving the audience a cue that they are absorbing adverting, but once again, media literacy matters. We live in a capitalist society and that's just part of it.

Propaganda is a little bit different. The aim of propaganda is to get you to internalize a value statement as a normal fact and from there to attach "truths" to the value. Think of it as advertising where the base product is a value statement and the profit margin is made on accessorizing. Patriotism for example, has a lot of propaganda around it. We recite the pledge in schools still I think. We celebrate veterans and memorial days with lavish ceremonies glorifying dead soldiers, complete with all kinds of archetypes and solemnness. Do we do that to satisfy our own individual needs to express the value or do we make the spectacle to communicate that it's an important value? If you aren't "patriotic", then you are not going to be respected by the group. In some cases that's a good or at least neutral thing.We do need shared values. Our youth have to do any fighting the group may need to protect ourselves as a group. An attack on one is an attack on all and all that. Or, if we like democracy, it matters that other people in our society like it too or we won't have it. But values we internalize as facts are some weird shit because those values are perfect buckets to hold whatever turds of truth someone with a good media department want to shit in them. Suddenly, patriotism might mean you have to love the idea that guns are legal for example. Everyone who has buried the patriotism truth too deep to see if it actually helps automatically adopts that other truth which actually has no relationship whatsoever to patriotism because they were told to believe it. There is an extension of that principle that if you tell a big enough lie that there are a nearly infinite matters of fact that refute it but use already legitimized sources for shitting truths into the patriotism (or whatever value) bucket, that the barrage of refutations will just make the situation too complicated and people will not only accept that truth but they will accept it and reject actual evidence that suggests the truth attached to the value is bullshit because they will only see the value being attacked, not the truth that was sqatted into it.

I would go into how the value of religion is being 'saved' and the truths that are ridiculous to most people are not only obvious to the saved (after someone squeezed them into the "saved" bucket- like YEC for example) they become necessary because it isn't the truth in question that the person is defending, it is the core value. Because they actually can't see the truth in question since they have substituted the underlying value and so do not question the truth itself, those people become manipulatable by those people who have figured out the bucket and offer up the truth turds for a living.

I just realized that I just wrote a book-length post and the conclusion doesn't matter because you won't understand a single word of it anyway. So fuck it. Suffice to say there's a significant amount of subtlety and it helps to understand what forms propaganda can take in order to identify it. The dumbass fake news about how trump's really the "greatest" is textbook perfect propaganda. It's a ridiculous claim if you don't have the underlying value (which in this case seems to be that OMG SOCIALISM or OMG HILLARY or OMG LIBERALS or something like that. If you don't need Trump to be great because of the underlying value, it wouldn't even make sense to formulate the concept. That is how you identify it as propaganda. If you sense you are being validated by some information, check and see if you feel that you need the validation to be true.

TL;DR

You seem to have a theme that all the statements out in the world with which you disagree are actually conspiracies or propaganda to get you and other people who are in possession of the real truthiest truth to change the facts of your truths just enough that you will slip up and not notice the shackles of normal society when they are slipped around your ankles. What you are resisting must be a truly dangerous thing.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31678
And the REASON it's wrong is because most of what you read involves SELLING SOMETHING in some way.

SALES drives so much error in our world today.  And most selling is based on half truths, spin and manipulation.
Oh, Bluffy, you need not confess your sins to us.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31679
What The Fuck Dave. :smug:
Quote
Choose your feed wisely.
Lactating does and does in late pregnancy have higher nutritional needs than dry does, wethers, or bucks. They will need supplemental feed beyond grass hay and browse in order to maintain their body condition and produce milk. Alfalfa, which is technically a legume and not a grass, is needed for them to meet their bodies' high demand for calcium. Some areas of the country can find alfalfa hay, but it can be difficult to find in some locations. In my location, the best source for alfalfa is in pellet form or Chaffhaye. Choose a brand with pellets that have a low amount of dust and a good green color (not a dull brownish shade). I prefer Standlee brand alfalfa pellets.
Lactating does also need some amount of grain. Grain will be a small portion of the diet, because while the does will only receive grain once or twice a day on the milk stand, they will be eating browse or hay all day long. Supplementing an animal with grain when it makes sense and is necessary is not going to be detrimental to the animal or to you; in fact, it will be beneficial because it will keep the animal in good condition and support a higher level of production. This is not the same as sticking your goats on dry lot and feeding them nothing but grain, which will definitely impact the health of the animal and the quality of the milk.
You should still choose good sources of grain. I prefer to stay away from soy, and so I have transitioned my girls from a premade goat pellet to a hand made mix. I am loosely following the recipe #3 on the Land of Havilah website. I recommend staying away from soy for a number of reasons, but if mixing your own is out of the question for you, you can look for soy-free brands. If this is also impossible for you, avoid sweet feeds with high molasses contents and provide a pellet formulated for goats.

ETA: Dave, you suck at reading and science.

They are wrong.

Most of what you read about Animal Science is wrong.

In fact, most of what you read in the much broader category of Life Sciences is wrong.

And you know this how?
Bluffy wants to believe it.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31680
And the REASON it's wrong is because most of what you read involves SELLING SOMETHING in some way.

SALES drives so much error in our world today.  And most selling is based on half truths, spin and manipulation.

Besides everything else, not all salesmen work like you do.
Also, that isn't even a reason. It's an unconnected claim. The reason X is wrong is ___
Where it might as well say "because Mikey likes it".
I knew Mikey, and he did like it.
Are we there yet?

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31681
And in whose interest is it to promulgate the "propaganda" that straw is flammable?
Who - other than haters here - is pushing that insidious lie?
Borealis. To try to make me look stupid and her smart.
Right. The (alleged) flammability of straw is a vast conspiracy to make you look stupid.

Remind me dave: What happened AFTER that?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31682
Ok. How about just explaining how to spot propaganda. Are there any tell tale signs that you're experiencing propaganda? Easy ways to recognize it?
I'll give you an example related to the topic of this thread. Commercial grain and dairy goats.  Almost everyone I know who owns Dairy goats says that you have to give them grain to keep them healthy. Propaganda? Or truth? How do we tell? By observation, just as you stated. Well guess what my observations have been over the past two years? They have been that this idea about Dairy goats and Grains is a myth. Propaganda. And it makes sense because grain is something you have to BUY which of course makes it in the interest of the people who sell it to promote the myth. See how that works?
Did you buy straw bales? Tarps? An iPhone? Propane? Gasoline for the Volvo replacement? Fast Food? Goats? Chain Saws? Internet? Microfibre blankets? A Wood Stove? Clothing? Solar Panels? The bible? HMG? Batteries? Sex? Sheep?
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31683
Here's another one related to this thread... A couple years ago borealis said something to the effect that my straw floor was dangerous and that it would catch on fire if hot coals fell on it. I suspected that this was just propaganda motivated by the fact that Borealis doesn't like me so she tries to make me look stupid. But how do I tell for sure if it's propaganda or not? Again... As you have stated... By observation. Well what's the best way to observe in this case? Well by pouring live coals directly onto the straw floor, that's how. And guess what happened? Virtually nothing. The floor did not catch on fire. So Borealis statement was pure propaganda, nothing more. Proven so by observation.
Except that one instance when they did.

Which makes your claims propoganda.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31684
Here's another one related to this thread... A couple years ago borealis said something to the effect that my straw floor was dangerous and that it would catch on fire if hot coals fell on it. I suspected that this was just propaganda motivated by the fact that Borealis doesn't like me so she tries to make me look stupid. But how do I tell for sure if it's propaganda or not? Again... As you have stated... By observation. Well what's the best way to observe in this case? Well by pouring live coals directly onto the straw floor, that's how. And guess what happened? Virtually nothing. The floor did not catch on fire. So Borealis statement was pure propaganda, nothing more. Proven so by observation.
I see. It's also totally fine to have your chimney exit inside your attic.
Certainly, if you want to be a martyr. And that's a major aspect of Bluffy's victimhood.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31685
Ok. How about just explaining how to spot propaganda. Are there any tell tale signs that you're experiencing propaganda? Easy ways to recognize it?
I'll give you an example related to the topic of this thread. Commercial grain and dairy goats.  Almost everyone I know who owns Dairy goats says that you have to give them grain to keep them healthy. Propaganda? Or truth? How do we tell? By observation, just as you stated. Well guess what my observations have been over the past two years? They have been that this idea about Dairy goats and Grains is a myth. Propaganda. And it makes sense because grain is something you have to BUY which of course makes it in the interest of the people who sell it to promote the myth. See how that works?
I'm not really sure you've isolated the only important factor through that sort of logic. I mean, milk production is one of those pretty observable sorts of things. BTW, are your milk goats the type where the tips of their tails is bald(ish)?
I didn't say I have isolated the only important factor. I said that I've determined the "dairy goats need grain" schtick to be a myth. And I did so by observation, which includes observation of milk output.
Which you didn't record. So we have only your post-event recollections.

Sorry, not science. Propaganda.
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31686
Ok. How about just explaining how to spot propaganda. Are there any tell tale signs that you're experiencing propaganda? Easy ways to recognize it?
I'll give you an example related to the topic of this thread. Commercial grain and dairy goats.  Almost everyone I know who owns Dairy goats says that you have to give them grain to keep them healthy. Propaganda? Or truth? How do we tell? By observation, just as you stated. Well guess what my observations have been over the past two years? They have been that this idea about Dairy goats and Grains is a myth. Propaganda. And it makes sense because grain is something you have to BUY which of course makes it in the interest of the people who sell it to promote the myth. See how that works?
I'm not really sure you've isolated the only important factor through that sort of logic. I mean, milk production is one of those pretty observable sorts of things. BTW, are your milk goats the type where the tips of their tails is bald(ish)?
I didn't say I have isolated the only important factor. I said that I've determined the "dairy goats need grain" schtick to be a myth. And I did so by observation, which includes observation of milk output.

What observations would have been evidence, in your view, that dairy goats do need grain (or at least more protein than you are giving them)?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31687
I see. It's also totally fine to have your chimney exit inside your attic.

When your attic is open on both ends it's probably fine.
No.

Your argument is similar to stating that since fires are relatively rare, it's OK to block some of the exits. Because fires are relatively rare and if everyone cooperates the other exits will be sufficient.

How about when you're the last in line?
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31688
The energy required to make Dave look stupid is small enough to require MIT level of expertise to measure.
No energy at all is required, it's spontaneous. Self-energizing.
Are we there yet?

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31689
Here's another one related to this thread... A couple years ago borealis said something to the effect that my straw floor was dangerous and that it would catch on fire if hot coals fell on it. I suspected that this was just propaganda motivated by the fact that Borealis doesn't like me so she tries to make me look stupid. But how do I tell for sure if it's propaganda or not? Again... As you have stated... By observation. Well what's the best way to observe in this case? Well by pouring live coals directly onto the straw floor, that's how. And guess what happened? Virtually nothing. The floor did not catch on fire. So Borealis statement was pure propaganda, nothing more. Proven so by observation.
I see. It's also totally fine to have your chimney exit inside your attic.
Certainly, if you want to be a martyr. And that's a major aspect of Bluffy's victimhood.

Tbf, I doubt he seriously wants to go up in flames with his home, and he does have some urge toward self-preservation. Notably, he took advice to reduce cresote production and produce more heat, and eventually moved his chimney (I think).

If you've never encountered a serious chimney fire, or even a little one, you might be less inclined to take them seriously - after all, most people assume such a fire would be confined to a fireproof chimney.

However, if you've seen blue flamelets spurting between chimney bricks in your kitchen while the whole thing is roaring like a freight train, and shortly after go outdoors to view the 2 metre tall pillar of flame emerging above your roof, the issue of creosote and chimney safety takes on a whole new urgency.*

*So lucky. VFD having their monthly meeting less than a km. away, house once belonged to mother of fire chief, so he knew exactly where it was. That was 30 years ago. Very vivid memory.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31690
Chimney fires used to be so common.  In my (small) home town, whenever we heard the fire engine us kids would all troop over to take a look.  We always hoped it would be a "proper" fire (not "just a chimney") but the chimney fires were still worth running across town to see.  The fun part was the flames shooting out of the chimney pot.

And the fire hoses of course.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31691
And in whose interest is it to promulgate the "propaganda" that straw is flammable?
Who - other than haters here - is pushing that insidious lie?
Borealis. To try to make me look stupid and her smart.

No.  You look stupid because you ARE stupid.  While it's true that people tend to look smarter than you when they point that out, that's epiphenomenal.  People point it out partly because it's a DISCUSSION board, and partly, in this case, because we don't actually want you to die in a fire.
Speak for yourself.

I personally believe it would be a fitting end to Bluffy's career. I've always liked instances when one is hoisted upon their own petard.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31692
: No matter how transparently pathetic or retarded any of Dave's claims may be they can always be followed by something even more pathetic and retarded.



You would think, that in a finite universe, there would be a limit to that statement.

So far no though.
Seventh Law: No matter how transparently pathetic or retarded any of Dave's claims may be they can always be followed by something even more pathetic and retarded.
Is inviolate.
Are we there yet?

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31693
Chimney fires used to be so common.  In my (small) home town, whenever we heard the fire engine us kids would all troop over to take a look.  We always hoped it would be a "proper" fire (not "just a chimney") but the chimney fires were still worth running across town to see.  The fun part was the flames shooting out of the chimney pot.

And the fire hoses of course.

Where i actually grew up, most people used coal for fuel, and bootleg coal at that, so it was often full of slag and hard to burn. Chimney fires were very common, as the slow burning backyard pit coal was notorious for producing literal streams of liquid creosote.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31694
Chimney fires used to be so common.  In my (small) home town, whenever we heard the fire engine us kids would all troop over to take a look.  We always hoped it would be a "proper" fire (not "just a chimney") but the chimney fires were still worth running across town to see.  The fun part was the flames shooting out of the chimney pot.

And the fire hoses of course.

Where i actually grew up, most people used coal for fuel, and bootleg coal at that, so it was often full of slag and hard to burn. Chimney fires were very common, as the slow burning backyard pit coal was notorious for producing literal streams of liquid creosote.

Same here - well, not usually bootleg coal as far as I know, but all heating was coal (or sometime coke - we had a coke-fired Aga in the kitchen).  So lots of chimney fires  aka lum fires, or "lummies".  As in Lang may yer lum reek.

And of course, Edinburgh's nickname was Auld Reekie.

Oh look, they still have lummies in Kelso:

http://www.firescotland.gov.uk/news-campaigns/news/2016/02/safety-appeal-after-chimney-fire-in-kelso.aspx

I know one of the firemen  :smug:

I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31695
You asked me how I would spot propaganda. I told you. I even gave you a concrete example from my very own experience. Now I'd like to hear you give a coherent response instead of falling victim to the mountainous clouds of squid ink being dispensed right now.

I don't think you did.  You don't seem to have a concept corresponding to "methodology".  Whenever you are asked how you do things, you respond with what you did.


yes I realize that but unfortunately I don't have the financial resources to increase N to 10 or 100 or 1000 or to do all these other rigorous things that you want me to do. But that does not mean that I'm not doing science. This is why I keep saying that you have too narrow a definition of science.
Yes it does.
If someone approached you with a "cure-all" patent medication of their own creation, and swore holy heaven it would cure anything, after all they had tried it on themselves and that they are there and healthy is proof of it's effectiveness, would you accept that? Would you buy the potion?

Or would you want some additional support, like field tests on more than the salesman and, perhaps, his family?

The lack of ability, financial or otherwise, or even that such would be adverse to sales or whatever, to substantiate your claims does not reduce that liability. That you would think so is just another reason why you suck at science.

Just another aspect of why Bluffy the Salesman doesn't even understand sales. Just another example of his failing to even recognize his own bias.
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31696
Ok. How about just explaining how to spot propaganda. Are there any tell tale signs that you're experiencing propaganda? Easy ways to recognize it?
I'll give you an example related to the topic of this thread. Commercial grain and dairy goats.  Almost everyone I know who owns Dairy goats says that you have to give them grain to keep them healthy. Propaganda? Or truth? How do we tell? By observation, just as you stated. Well guess what my observations have been over the past two years? They have been that this idea about Dairy goats and Grains is a myth. Propaganda. And it makes sense because grain is something you have to BUY which of course makes it in the interest of the people who sell it to promote the myth. See how that works?
I'm not really sure you've isolated the only important factor through that sort of logic. I mean, milk production is one of those pretty observable sorts of things. BTW, are your milk goats the type where the tips of their tails is bald(ish)?
I didn't say I have isolated the only important factor. I said that I've determined the "dairy goats need grain" schtick to be a myth. And I did so by observation, which includes observation of milk output.

What observations would have been evidence, in your view, that dairy goats do need grain (or at least more protein than you are giving them)?
They would be sick and he'd know because they'd be coughing and sneezing and runny nose with headaches and tummy aches and running a fever and calling in sick for work.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31697
Here's another one related to this thread... A couple years ago borealis said something to the effect that my straw floor was dangerous and that it would catch on fire if hot coals fell on it. I suspected that this was just propaganda motivated by the fact that Borealis doesn't like me so she tries to make me look stupid. But how do I tell for sure if it's propaganda or not? Again... As you have stated... By observation. Well what's the best way to observe in this case? Well by pouring live coals directly onto the straw floor, that's how. And guess what happened? Virtually nothing. The floor did not catch on fire. So Borealis statement was pure propaganda, nothing more. Proven so by observation.

I placed a glowing coal on some straw and it caught fire in about 5 seconds.  What does that tell us then Dave?
That you lied, or, perhaps, you were taking hallucinatory drugs and simply imagined the whole thing. You probably shoplift and prostitute yourself to support your LSD habit.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31698
Here's another one related to this thread... A couple years ago borealis said something to the effect that my straw floor was dangerous and that it would catch on fire if hot coals fell on it. I suspected that this was just propaganda motivated by the fact that Borealis doesn't like me so she tries to make me look stupid. But how do I tell for sure if it's propaganda or not? Again... As you have stated... By observation. Well what's the best way to observe in this case? Well by pouring live coals directly onto the straw floor, that's how. And guess what happened? Virtually nothing. The floor did not catch on fire. So Borealis statement was pure propaganda, nothing more. Proven so by observation.
I see. It's also totally fine to have your chimney exit inside your attic.
Certainly, if you want to be a martyr. And that's a major aspect of Bluffy's victimhood.

Tbf, I doubt he seriously wants to go up in flames with his home, and he does have some urge toward self-preservation. Notably, he took advice to reduce cresote production and produce more heat, and eventually moved his chimney (I think).

If you've never encountered a serious chimney fire, or even a little one, you might be less inclined to take them seriously - after all, most people assume such a fire would be confined to a fireproof chimney.

However, if you've seen blue flamelets spurting between chimney bricks in your kitchen while the whole thing is roaring like a freight train, and shortly after go outdoors to view the 2 metre tall pillar of flame emerging above your roof, the issue of creosote and chimney safety takes on a whole new urgency.*

*So lucky. VFD having their monthly meeting less than a km. away, house once belonged to mother of fire chief, so he knew exactly where it was. That was 30 years ago. Very vivid memory.
My daughter was up in the mountains on a ski trip with friends, staying in a very nice cabin, an A-Frame. Sometime during the night, those on the upper floors smelled smoke, and woke everyone. They barely escaped with their pajamas on and some blankets, the cabin was gone before the fire department got there.  The problem, creosote in the flue and an inadequate separation of the flue from the structure.

Sure, excess creosote in the flue is not really common, though it happens often enough, but usually the separation, either air space or non-flammable construction intervenes. So, no worries. Just go to sleep. It's all OK. The flames are your fate in hell.
Are we there yet?

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #31699
You asked me how I would spot propaganda. I told you. I even gave you a concrete example from my very own experience. Now I'd like to hear you give a coherent response instead of falling victim to the mountainous clouds of squid ink being dispensed right now.

I don't think you did.  You don't seem to have a concept corresponding to "methodology".  Whenever you are asked how you do things, you respond with what you did.


yes I realize that but unfortunately I don't have the financial resources to increase N to 10 or 100 or 1000 or to do all these other rigorous things that you want me to do. But that does not mean that I'm not doing science. This is why I keep saying that you have too narrow a definition of science.
But when someone else offers an n=1 anecdote that invalidates your wackaloon claims about dental health and diet, you dismiss it, and then accuse that person of lying.  This is your standard OP.  And it is fundamentally dishonest.