Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: Get Out

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 211313 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29525
And yet you seem totally unable to deal with anything I say. To the point where you are once again reduced to content-free name-calling.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29526
What you say often reveals how new you are to "the Dave show" and it would take a lot of work to bring you up to speed so I just let it go and hope you'll figure it out someday.  The typewriter thing is an example.  No, I'm not in the mood right now to set you straight on that.  See if you can figure it out on your own.  Also, if you get too crazy combined with being too prolific, I'll just put you on ignore like Faid.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29527
My Uncle used to say the same thing. He had his helicopter parked on the roof, but you *just* couldn't see it, as the chimney blocked it from sight. He could also jump over his own house, but he was a bit tired, or else he would have shown me.

In terms of emotional development you really are about 7 aren't you?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29528
Actually we DO use the word "machine" in the  sense of using the machine for OUR purpose.  so I disagree with your statement on that point.  I use my saw for MY purpose of cutting wood and I use my drill for MY purpose of boring holes and so on.  so in a very real sense a dairy goat IS a machine in the very same way that my drill is a machine.
No, there is no "very real sense" in which a goat is a machine.

One.
More.
Time.

What DEFINITION (you know, a meaning of a word AS GENERALLY USED BY HUMANS) of "machine" are you using here?
State it.
Articulate it.
Write it down.
Don't just hand-wavily intimate that somehow, somewhere, some such definition exits.
It sure as hell isn't anything like the one Bruce Alberts was using.
  • Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 05:39:02 AM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29529
Oh ... and I remembered the point of this "machine" side discussion ... you guys keep saying that I'm actually a reductionist and you are holists, but I was objecting and saying no you've got it backwards, I'm the holist and YOU guys are the reductionists.
And your argument in favor of that proposition is that YOU think animals can be reduced to "machines", and WE think they are much more than that.

It's the ultimate Own Goal!  :notworthy:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29530
Oh ... and I remembered the point of this "machine" side discussion ... you guys keep saying that I'm actually a reductionist and you are holists, but I was objecting and saying no you've got it backwards, I'm the holist and YOU guys are the reductionists.  And my latest conjecture as to why you might be making this error is that perhaps being Darwinists you do not understand the true nature of organisms, therefore you are unaware that you are "being reductionist" when you say things like "drinking fluoridated water is a non-reductionist (holist) thing to do."

I don't think you're a reductionist, or a holist. I don't even think you understand what those words mean.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29531
Oh ... and I remembered the point of this "machine" side discussion ... you guys keep saying that I'm actually a reductionist and you are holists, but I was objecting and saying no you've got it backwards, I'm the holist and YOU guys are the reductionists.
And your argument in favor of that proposition is that YOU think animals can be reduced to "machines", and WE think they are much more than that.

It's the ultimate Own Goal!  :notworthy:

Hugely telling that the God-believing creationist here is the one who refuses to value animals as anything more than useful (for him) machinery, setting himself up to comfortably believe nothing horrible he does to them can contribute to any sense of shame or guilt on his part.

Words have meanings, Dave, and sometimes those meanings have intellectual and emotional subtexts. Your awful, self-serving twisting of the meaning of 'machine' says a lot more about you than it does about reality.

Bottom line: Y'all need Jesus, Hawkins. You really do.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29532
Actually we DO use the word "machine" in the  sense of using the machine for OUR purpose.  so I disagree with your statement on that point.  I use my saw for MY purpose of cutting wood and I use my drill for MY purpose of boring holes and so on.  so in a very real sense a dairy goat IS a machine in the very same way that my drill is a machine.
No, there is no "very real sense" in which a goat is a machine.

One.
More.
Time.

What DEFINITION (you know, a meaning of a word AS GENERALLY USED BY HUMANS) of "machine" are you using here?
State it.
Articulate it.
Write it down.
Don't just hand-wavily intimate that somehow, somewhere, some such definition exits.
It sure as hell isn't anything like the one Bruce Alberts was using.
Take any def you like.  Here's the first one that comes up on Google ...

ma·chine
məˈSHēn/Submit
noun
1.
an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.
"a fax machine"

A goat IS an apparatus.
It DOES use and apply mechanical power.
It DOES have several parts.
Each part DOES have a definite function.
And together these parts DO perform particular tasks.

See?

Are you really not bright enough to figure this stuff out on your own?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29533
Oh ... and I remembered the point of this "machine" side discussion ... you guys keep saying that I'm actually a reductionist and you are holists, but I was objecting and saying no you've got it backwards, I'm the holist and YOU guys are the reductionists.
And your argument in favor of that proposition is that YOU think animals can be reduced to "machines", and WE think they are much more than that.

It's the ultimate Own Goal!  :notworthy:

Hugely telling that the God-believing creationist here is the one who refuses to value animals as anything more than useful (for him) machinery, setting himself up to comfortably believe nothing horrible he does to them can contribute to any sense of shame or guilt on his part.

Words have meanings, Dave, and sometimes those meanings have intellectual and emotional subtexts. Your awful, self-serving twisting of the meaning of 'machine' says a lot more about you than it does about reality.

Bottom line: Y'all need Jesus, Hawkins. You really do.
I'm an awful, self serving Jesus hypocrite ... because of my goat pen I suppose ...

Never mind that my goat milk system is orders of magnitude kinder to animals than the system by which Borealis gets HER milk.

So who is the hypocrite here?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29534
Oh ... and I remembered the point of this "machine" side discussion ... you guys keep saying that I'm actually a reductionist and you are holists, but I was objecting and saying no you've got it backwards, I'm the holist and YOU guys are the reductionists.
And your argument in favor of that proposition is that YOU think animals can be reduced to "machines", and WE think they are much more than that.

It's the ultimate Own Goal!  :notworthy:
No.

It's quite fascinating that you cannot even get your head around what my argument even is.

My argument is NOT that "animals can be reduced to machines" ... my argument is "animal ARE machines [1] that are designed for particular purposes related to the well being of mankind and the well being of all other species, and thus can and should be controlled by "Big Buttons" as opposed to the more complex (and failure prone) system of pressing small buttons which were never designed to be pushed in the first place."

THAT'S my argument.

Don't misrepresent me.
factories comprised of smaller factories containing machines to be more precise

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29535
Hugely telling that the God-believing creationist here is the one who refuses to value animals as anything more than useful (for him) machinery
Been thinking about that throughout this discussion. It really is weird, considering the number of times in the past I've seen YECs berate "Darwinists" for thinking of living beings as "machines." It's just another example of the amazing contortions Dave will twist himself into to argue even the most trivial of points. DaveHasToBeRightism really overrides all other thought for him.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29536
Hugely telling that the God-believing creationist here is the one who refuses to value animals as anything more than useful (for him) machinery
Been thinking about that throughout this discussion. It really is weird, considering the number of times in the past I've seen YECs berate "Darwinists" for thinking of living beings as "machines." It's just another example of the amazing contortions Dave will twist himself into to argue even the most trivial of points. DaveHasToBeRightism really overrides all other thought for him.
If you are really going to adopt that view, then you have to explain why Dave Hawkins - YEC - has a much kinder-and-gentler-to-animals milk production system than 99% of the milk production systems out there.

Question ... do YOU drink grocery store milk?

If so, then YOU are the one mistreating animals, not me.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29537
Hugely telling that the God-believing creationist here is the one who refuses to value animals as anything more than useful (for him) machinery
Been thinking about that throughout this discussion. It really is weird, considering the number of times in the past I've seen YECs berate "Darwinists" for thinking of living beings as "machines." It's just another example of the amazing contortions Dave will twist himself into to argue even the most trivial of points. DaveHasToBeRightism really overrides all other thought for him.
If you are really going to adopt that view, then you have to explain why Dave Hawkins - YEC - has a much kinder-and-gentler-to-animals milk production system than 99% of the milk production systems out there.

Question ... do YOU drink grocery store milk?

If so, then YOU are the one mistreating animals, not me.
If you are going to make a post like that in response to the post you just quoted, then you have to explain what the fuck it has to do with anything I said.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29538
Oh ... and I remembered the point of this "machine" side discussion ... you guys keep saying that I'm actually a reductionist and you are holists, but I was objecting and saying no you've got it backwards, I'm the holist and YOU guys are the reductionists.
And your argument in favor of that proposition is that YOU think animals can be reduced to "machines", and WE think they are much more than that.

It's the ultimate Own Goal!  :notworthy:
No.

It's quite fascinating that you cannot even get your head around what my argument even is.

My argument is NOT that "animals can be reduced to machines" ... my argument is "animal ARE machines [1] that are designed for particular purposes related to the well being of mankind and the well being of all other species, and thus can and should be controlled by "Big Buttons" as opposed to the more complex (and failure prone) system of pressing small buttons which were never designed to be pushed in the first place."

THAT'S my argument.

Don't misrepresent me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loa_loa
factories comprised of smaller factories containing machines to be more precise

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29539
Hugely telling that the God-believing creationist here is the one who refuses to value animals as anything more than useful (for him) machinery
Been thinking about that throughout this discussion. It really is weird, considering the number of times in the past I've seen YECs berate "Darwinists" for thinking of living beings as "machines." It's just another example of the amazing contortions Dave will twist himself into to argue even the most trivial of points. DaveHasToBeRightism really overrides all other thought for him.
If you are really going to adopt that view, then you have to explain why Dave Hawkins - YEC - has a much kinder-and-gentler-to-animals milk production system than 99% of the milk production systems out there.

Question ... do YOU drink grocery store milk?

If so, then YOU are the one mistreating animals, not me.
If you are going to make a post like that in response to the post you just quoted, then you have to explain what the fuck it has to do with anything I said.
If you can't figure out the connection, then you are more brain dead than I thought.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29540
Hugely telling that the God-believing creationist here is the one who refuses to value animals as anything more than useful (for him) machinery
Been thinking about that throughout this discussion. It really is weird, considering the number of times in the past I've seen YECs berate "Darwinists" for thinking of living beings as "machines." It's just another example of the amazing contortions Dave will twist himself into to argue even the most trivial of points. DaveHasToBeRightism really overrides all other thought for him.
If you are really going to adopt that view, then you have to explain why Dave Hawkins - YEC - has a much kinder-and-gentler-to-animals milk production system than 99% of the milk production systems out there.

Question ... do YOU drink grocery store milk?

If so, then YOU are the one mistreating animals, not me.
If you are going to make a post like that in response to the post you just quoted, then you have to explain what the fuck it has to do with anything I said.
If you can't figure out the connection, then you are more brain dead than I thought.
If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it.

ETA: Have you ever wondered why RAFH refers to you as "Bluffy"?
  • Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 06:26:27 AM by BenTheBiased

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29541
Actually we DO use the word "machine" in the  sense of using the machine for OUR purpose.  so I disagree with your statement on that point.  I use my saw for MY purpose of cutting wood and I use my drill for MY purpose of boring holes and so on.  so in a very real sense a dairy goat IS a machine in the very same way that my drill is a machine.
No, there is no "very real sense" in which a goat is a machine.

One.
More.
Time.

What DEFINITION (you know, a meaning of a word AS GENERALLY USED BY HUMANS) of "machine" are you using here?
State it.
Articulate it.
Write it down.
Don't just hand-wavily intimate that somehow, somewhere, some such definition exits.
It sure as hell isn't anything like the one Bruce Alberts was using.
Take any def you like.  Here's the first one that comes up on Google ...

ma·chine
məˈSHēn/Submit
noun
1.
an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.
"a fax machine"

A goat IS an apparatus.
No.
It's not.
Quote
...
Each part DOES have a definite function.
No, each part does not.
The liver, for instance performs scores if not hundreds of functions.
Quote
And together these parts DO perform particular tasks.
The definition said performing a particular task. Which is in line with what Alberts was talking about. With respect to ENZYMES.  Not any number of hand-wavily defined "tasks" including such ludicrous items as "entertaining children" ::) .

Quote
See?
Yes.
Do you?

Quote
Are you really not bright enough to figure this stuff out on your own?
And there's the bravado. Right on schedule.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29542
Hugely telling that the God-believing creationist here is the one who refuses to value animals as anything more than useful (for him) machinery
Been thinking about that throughout this discussion. It really is weird, considering the number of times in the past I've seen YECs berate "Darwinists" for thinking of living beings as "machines." It's just another example of the amazing contortions Dave will twist himself into to argue even the most trivial of points. DaveHasToBeRightism really overrides all other thought for him.
If you are really going to adopt that view, then you have to explain why Dave Hawkins - YEC - has a much kinder-and-gentler-to-animals milk production system than 99% of the milk production systems out there.

Question ... do YOU drink grocery store milk?

If so, then YOU are the one mistreating animals, not me.

You don't have a "much kinder and gentler" system - you have a system that would have seen you prosecuted for cruelty, the animals re-homed and the equipment destroyed where I live.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29543
So when you observe the Ommatokaita Elongata, intuitively you just know that it is a machine designed to make sharks blind for their own good? Or is it the other way around, and are the sharks designed to make sure the parasite gets around a bit?



  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29544
My argument is NOT that "animals can be reduced to machines" ... my argument is "animal ARE machines*
*factories comprised of smaller factories containing machines to be more precise
That's not being "more precise". That's changing the definition altogether.


Quote
that are designed for particular purposes related to the well being of mankind and the well being of all other species,
No one here has suggested goats - and pretty much all organisms - did not evolve as integral, interacting, parts of their ecosystems. That's the opposite of reductionism, as understood by the rest of the world.  Your adding the notion that they were designed with particular purposes in mind adds nothing to "holism". Quite the contrary, in fact.

Quote
and thus can and should be controlled by "Big Buttons" as opposed to the more complex (and failure prone) system of pressing small buttons which were never designed to be pushed in the first place."

THAT'S my argument.
And it's a complete non-sequitur of an "argument"
Let's focus on that word thus that you (mis)used there.
It means the same thing as so (that you also keep misusing):  "the foregoing being true, it follows that..."

There's nothing about a goat  being perceived as "factories comprised of smaller factories containing machines" that implies
they "can and should be controlled by 'Big Buttons' ".  You're also equivocating here.  What "Big Buttons" are you talking about? Previously you were using that idiotic phrase to refer to ways to control an ecosystem (wolves wrt Yellowstone, for instance.) Is an ecosystem also davined as a "machine"? NOW you're talking about some (unnamed) "Big Button" that is supposedly the correct way to control the "goat machine".

And what the hell is  "the more complex (and failure prone) system of pressing small buttons which were never designed to be pushed in the first place"  supposed to refer to?  You seem to be saying that if we attend to some (unidentified) "Big Button" on the "goat machine", we can - and should - ignore all the niggling little details, like do they get all the nutrients they need? do they have access to adequate shelter from the elements? Are they protected from disease? etc. etc. etc

You think THAT's what defines "holism" (vs. "reductionism")  ? ? ?
  • Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 06:44:19 AM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29545
Hugely telling that the God-believing creationist here is the one who refuses to value animals as anything more than useful (for him) machinery
Been thinking about that throughout this discussion. It really is weird, considering the number of times in the past I've seen YECs berate "Darwinists" for thinking of living beings as "machines." It's just another example of the amazing contortions Dave will twist himself into to argue even the most trivial of points. DaveHasToBeRightism really overrides all other thought for him.
If you are really going to adopt that view, then you have to explain why Dave Hawkins - YEC - has a much kinder-and-gentler-to-animals milk production system than 99% of the milk production systems out there.

Question ... do YOU drink grocery store milk?

If so, then YOU are the one mistreating animals, not me.

You don't have a "much kinder and gentler" system - you have a system that would have seen you prosecuted for cruelty, the animals re-homed and the equipment destroyed where I live.
You very likely have no idea what you are talking about.  I doubt seriously that any officials where you live are as stupid as you.  But I suppose they could be.  If they would if fact do what you are saying, then what they are actually doing would be putting my goats into a WORSE situation in which they would die if not for medication and in which they will probably be eating old dry yucky hay all winter and where they would have a bit more elbow room, true, but at the expense of having to walk around (and eat) in their own feces and in the feces of their other cell mates.

In short, you're an idiot.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29546
And if you think I'm exaggerating here, consider this ... my goats have been "engaging in holy matrimony" for a couple of weeks now at a neighbor's goat farm which is exactly the kind of nasty farm I have been describing all this time.  The neighbor lets me come to his farm and milk them once a day and the first day I did, I was shocked at how hungry they looked.  I have NEVER seen their bellies so thin!  And their milk production that first day was atrocious ... got maybe 1/4 of a half gallon bottle ... probably a little less than that actually.  All they had to eat was old dry, nasty looking hay.  I was worried that they would dry off altogether and maybe have health problems.  So I immediately began bringing over my nice, sweet smelling fresh tree hay and they went wild eating it ... the buck also discovered it and went wild too ... they rebounded pretty quickly and did not look so thin over the next few days and their milk production rebounded as well.  Unfortunately I didn't have much tree hay because of my toe incident so I was just about to buy some alfalfa hay from a local farmer when my neighbor told me that he had some clover hay and would start putting it out.  They love it and their milk production is now back up to almost a full half gallon bottle per day.  I'm still worried about them getting wormy but I have no choice because I don't want to keep a buck.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29547
And therefore the proposition that "goats are machines" is somehow vindicated?  :dunno:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29548
No.

And therefore the proposition that "Dave is mistreating his goats" is refuted.

Do try to keep up.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29549
Hugely telling that the God-believing creationist here is the one who refuses to value animals as anything more than useful (for him) machinery
Been thinking about that throughout this discussion. It really is weird, considering the number of times in the past I've seen YECs berate "Darwinists" for thinking of living beings as "machines." It's just another example of the amazing contortions Dave will twist himself into to argue even the most trivial of points. DaveHasToBeRightism really overrides all other thought for him.
If you are really going to adopt that view, then you have to explain why Dave Hawkins - YEC - has a much kinder-and-gentler-to-animals milk production system than 99% of the milk production systems out there.

Question ... do YOU drink grocery store milk?

If so, then YOU are the one mistreating animals, not me.

You don't have a "much kinder and gentler" system - you have a system that would have seen you prosecuted for cruelty, the animals re-homed and the equipment destroyed where I live.
You very likely have no idea what you are talking about.  I doubt seriously that any officials where you live are as stupid as you.  But I suppose they could be.  If they would if fact do what you are saying, then what they are actually doing would be putting my goats into a WORSE situation in which they would die if not for medication and in which they will probably be eating old dry yucky hay all winter and where they would have a bit more elbow room, true, but at the expense of having to walk around (and eat) in their own feces and in the feces of their other cell mates.

In short, you're an idiot.


Nope - where I live the population and their legislative representatives put the welfare of the animals in our care above any individual's desire to be cruel and to treat them like insentient machines.

Your goat prison is illegal where I live and you would have been prosecuted by now. Allowing pigs to die through neglect is also a crime here...