Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: atheism's gadfly.

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 - DaveGodfrey

1
The British Empire had been bumbling round the world being racist at people for about 350 years before Price was born.
3
You know ...  Magic fairies, the children suddenly started eating salad every day at home, etc

 there are many possible hypotheses :-)

Ha, your whole belief rests on magic, you utter puffoon.
No it doesn't. My belief rests on evidence.
Why do the curves agree Dave?
4
At least now no one can say "What?! Where did Price say he did an experiment on kids who were eating mostly refined carbs?"

You've been shown.

No excuses now.

All you can do is try to say that Price was incompetent.

Which is frankly a hoot.
What excuse do you have for ignoring the fact that nothing in that "experiment" links carbohydrates to the deficiency that Price corrected?

I guess it takes a competent man to correcly identify competence (or lack thereof).

"highly sweetened"

"white flour pancakes"

"doughnuts"

"white bread|

"syrup"

You've got to be kidding me ... no one can be this dumb.
After a decade of watching your online persona, I have no such delusions.

Dave, We are talking about the MECHANISM by which carbohydrates cause problems. Remember? THAT is the point here.

When you admit that a deficiency ALREADY exists, then that deficiency will cause problems by itself. And CORRECTING that deficiency will make the organism better, whether the "cause" of that deficiency was carbohydrates or not.

But that tells us nothing on whether carbohydrates caused that "deficiency" in the first place. And it tell us nothing on whether carbohydrates can cause problems on their own, besides that deficiency.

Do you seriously not get it? And you claim that it's us that suck at science, and not you?
Jesus Christ you are an idiot.

 The kids had horrible teeth. I hope that part is obvious to you.

 now the possible causes in play that I am aware of are...

1)  acid eating the teeth because the kids were eating refined carbohydrates - remedy - brush with toothpaste often

2) acid eating the teeth because of a LACK of body building / tooth protecting materials - remedy - fix their nutritional deficiencies

 those are the two choices that I am aware of.

 Price believed the latter, tested it, and his theory seems to be supported by the experiment. 

 what part of this are you having trouble with?
Where's his control?
5
You probably shouldn't watch Thor: Ragnarok then either
6
Dave, Hunter-Gatherers don't drink the milk of other species as adults.
7
For the same reason that Pahu is incapable of answering whether 20 is between 1 and 10. Because it shows the people he quotes from aren't telling him the full story. Because it shows what he thought was wrong, and what I keep telling him is the case is correct.
It took Pahu several weeks to even accept the existence of rocks overlying the Coconino Formation. (All the while accusing me of "evidence free denial").
8
Plus, I was pretty irked with the completely idiotic reinvention and smooshing together of both the Greek and Roman pantheons.  Seriously, these are well established myths. - don't go fucking with them just so you can make some superheroine movie.  
I'm pretty sure they've been smooshed together like that since the comics were first written in the 1940s. 
9
but if there's a notion here that people are entitled to work in the particular industry they know and like, even if it requires large and sustained public intervention to prop up, I see problems with that. 
If a person can't get a job that covers their expenses in the place they live... shouldn't they move?  If the jobs available to them don't meet their income requirements... shouldn't they retrain?

If people live in an rural setting, and it is unsustainable, we seem perfectly willing to insist that the rural dwellers should move to urban settings, retrain to a completely new field, and completely uproot their lives.  If people live in an urban setting, and it is unsustainable, we seem perfectly willing to increase minimum wage, provide housing and food assistance, subsidize their transportation, and make sure they aren't forced to uproot their lives.
Because a lot of other people who can afford to live in an urban setting want to have teachers, and nurses, and public transport operators, and retail workers within easy reach, and there's an awful lot of them with lots of money.
10
At a vague point at which the brain is sufficiently developed.

ETA: Ah, I see what this is in relation to. Yes, after they've exited the birth canal. Premature babies would be babies once they're out in the incubator. Before then they would be fetuses. In context people would be talking about humans that have been born, but are too young to be described as "toddlers". Infant would be a suitable alternative word.

Words not only mean things, but that meaning may be contextual.
11
Most hotdogs are crappy 80% rusk things where you barely have any meat in them anyway. Proper sausages however (and by extension proper frankfurters), couldn't be more different.
12
I'd still like to see that handled by the ethics investigation rather than a simple resignation. There needs to be a general system of accountability that applies to both Rs and Ds. If Dems resign when they do something shitty but Republicans just hold on and do nothing, accusations will become entrenched as a partisan tool to purge democrats.
Yeah, resignation is fine (at least it gets him out of office), but I still want a formal investigation.  You don't get to just "Bye!" your way out of it.  Also criminal charges for fuck's sake!
In Franken's case there are either no charges to press or his victims aren't interested in pressing charges. Which is their perogative.
13
City life is objectively the "bestest" based on every conceivable metric of quality of life, and as an actuary Pandora should know that better than anyone.
I don't think you're much able to conceive of anything useful here.

It's totally the best in being surrounded by filth, dirt, human excrement, and trash.  Also the best at being unaffordable for anyone except the wealthy.  And it's totally the best for being within walking distance of several posh food boutiques and really trendy gastropubs.  And it's unquestionably the best for being almost constantly within touching distance of total strangers who are happy to glare at you as you walk by.  And it totally rocks in terms of having the latest fashions, technology, and other overt status symbols on display for everyone to see how cool you are.

But if you happen to be fond of trees, or gardens, or home-cooked meals, or a back-yard, or a dog that doesn't fit in a purse, or the sound of the wind instead of cars, or the occasional bunny rabbit or dear being visible outside of a zoo... Yeah, not so much.

All the rats are very good at convincing themselves that the standards that rats have set for rat lives are the only reasonable standards for deer to judge their lives by.

It speaks volumes that your mind went to frolicking bunnies instead of, for example, mortality rates or access to education or economic opportunity. Or anything that matters outside of misguided fantasies about Getting Back to The Simple Life. Harsh truth: The Simple Life is hard. It's short, dangerous, and closed to opportunities of basically every kind. And you know this, which is why you're an actuary in a metro instead of running a combine out in Whitman County.
https://www.visitleevalley.org.uk/en/content/cms/nature/nature.../tottenham-marshes/

Coincidentally this opened to the public a couple of weeks ago. Its a short walk from my house.

I live in London. Population 8.7m
14
"Things become staples because its very easy to grow lots of it, and store and transport it with less labour than the alternatives."

STORE.

TRANSPORT.

Yes. Grow ... NO.

It is much easier to grow a flock of sheep if plenty of pasture is available.  if you have a flock of 1000 ewes, then in May when they have their lambs, you will have a flock of 2500 or 3000 instead of 1000.  And all YOU did was  introduce rams in December.

And watched over them to keep predators away. And rescued them when they fell in holes. And moved them from pasture to pasture. And milked them. And sheared them. And got your hands up inside them to help them give birth. And built and maintained fences to keep them from straying too far (and again to keep predators away). And built and maintained shelters for them in inclement weather. And a fuck load of other stuff. And you'd need several of you with a herd of 1000. Now I'll admit that my understanding of sheep farming is largely limited to old episodes of "All Creatures Great and Small" about a vet in Yorkshire who dealt with a lot of sheep farmers. But it very clearly introduced me to the idea that sheep farming involved work.

Quote
It's also much easier to harvest perennial wheat than do all the work associated with annual wheat. That's why Walter reports such a high EROI figure for the ancient Persians (50) for this activity.  (Compare to 12 for Roman wheat farms)
The Persians were gathering perennial wheat right, rather than deliberately planting and cultivating it? So its pretty easy to walk along, picking off ears as you go and sticking them in your basket. But you don't actually get that much wheat for the same area compared to sticking annual wheat in a field. You see this is why EROI is  problem. Because it completely ignores a ton of otehr factors, Its far too reductionist.
You're right in your observation that Europeans have figured out how to take otherwise easy tasks and make them ridiculously hard, such as sheep farming.

This shit was happening in the fertile crescent Dave? You know, "Shepherds watching their flocks" and all that? Parables about lost sheep returning to the fold? Its been hard work doing this for millennia.

Quote
  i'm not sure why this is. But I'm not the first to observe it. Keynes observed it as well. (link I posted awhile back).  anyway, people like Joe Hopping are rediscovering sheep farming with far less work.  there is no shearing,

There is if you want wool Dave. There's a reason many breeds of sheep are both good for meat and wool. Animal herding isn't just about food Dave. Sheep domestication absolutely wasn't.

Quote
no hoof trimming, no tail docking, and no meds with the type of sheep that Joe raises.

Its a good think he's not in an area where rinderpest is common then. Or Foot-and-mouth disease. I'd be interested to know how they're immune to foot rot too.

Quote
there is also no need to watch for predators because of the protection dogs.

How about watching for stupid sheep falling down a hole? How many does Hopping lose to accidents?

Quote
You DO have to feed the protection dogs, but this is minimal because a family of two or three dogs can protect hundreds and hundreds of sheep.  Once a year you have a really long workday or two selecting rams and castrating the rejects.  once a year in November or so, there is a little bit of work involved in introducing the rams back into the flock for breeding.  Once a year in March or so, there is a fair amount of work rounding up the weaned lambs for sale and taking them to market.  other than that, there is not much work. Just moving a hot wire once a day and checking the water supply.

Ah, there we go. What powers the hot wire Dave? Solar? Does Joe make his own solar panels? Do you think the Mesopotamians had solar panels Dave?
15
In any case, I AM thinking holistically and have been for years ... (Lol that you think I haven't been) ...

Here's my original one I posted a year or two ago ...



And here's a more recent one ...

I remember that. I remember how much of a battle it was to get you to realise it might actually be necessary.
It's only necessary for YOU. I already know the answer  because it has been demonstrated all over the world all throughout history in various pockets.
Your revisionism is showing again Dave. Remember your perfectly spaced plots around the Ford Factory? Remember how we kept pointing out that it was spectacularly inefficient? Remember how you stamped your foot and insisted it wouldn't be a problem because everyone would work part-time at the factory and then spend the rest of their time torturing goats in a box on wheels?

No. Of course you don't. Its a good thing the messageboard exists so we can quote things to you then isn't it?

Nobody disputes that low-density housing with a nice view of the woods and a garden and a few chickens isn't a lovely way to live for some people. But unless you want to be living with 14th century technology that everyone you know can fix, you need people in cities elsewhere designing and building the stuff that you want and need.
16
"Things become staples because its very easy to grow lots of it, and store and transport it with less labour than the alternatives."

STORE.

TRANSPORT.

Yes. Grow ... NO.

It is much easier to grow a flock of sheep if plenty of pasture is available.  if you have a flock of 1000 ewes, then in May when they have their lambs, you will have a flock of 2500 or 3000 instead of 1000.  And all YOU did was  introduce rams in December.

And watched over them to keep predators away. And rescued them when they fell in holes. And moved them from pasture to pasture. And milked them. And sheared them. And got your hands up inside them to help them give birth. And built and maintained fences to keep them from straying too far (and again to keep predators away). And built and maintained shelters for them in inclement weather. And a fuck load of other stuff. And you'd need several of you with a herd of 1000. Now I'll admit that my understanding of sheep farming is largely limited to old episodes of "All Creatures Great and Small" about a vet in Yorkshire who dealt with a lot of sheep farmers. But it very clearly introduced me to the idea that sheep farming involved work.

Quote
It's also much easier to harvest perennial wheat than do all the work associated with annual wheat. That's why Walter reports such a high EROI figure for the ancient Persians (50) for this activity.  (Compare to 12 for Roman wheat farms)
The Persians were gathering perennial wheat right, rather than deliberately planting and cultivating it? So its pretty easy to walk along, picking off ears as you go and sticking them in your basket. But you don't actually get that much wheat for the same area compared to sticking annual wheat in a field. You see this is why EROI is  problem. Because it completely ignores a ton of otehr factors, Its far too reductionist.
17
In any case, I AM thinking holistically and have been for years ... (Lol that you think I haven't been) ...

Here's my original one I posted a year or two ago ...



And here's a more recent one ...

I remember that. I remember how much of a battle it was to get you to realise it might actually be necessary. 
18
Going back to Pingu's "separate accounting" mandate ... in my mind the whole thing categorizes as follows ...

SUSTAINABLE LIVING
-Sustainable Housing
-Sustainable Food Production
--EROI (human)
--EROI (fossil fuel)
--EROI (renewable)
---EROI (solar)
---EROI (wind)
---EROI (hydro)
-Sustainable Energy Production

Good.  Now break it down further and include, for instance, transport, transport infrastructure, and embodied energy.  And also land use.

And itemise the debits and credits.  Then you will start to see where the trade-offs are - e.g. where giving people more land to grow more of their own food (reduce food miles) is offset by the extra miles they have to travel to buy, or do, or make, what they DON'T produce locally. 


I'll do it when *I* get damn good and ready.  Don't rush me.  And don't pull that squid ink shit on me again.  I'll see right through it every time.
Its not squid ink you stupid man. Its something we've been telling you about since the beginning of this whole idiocy,
19
2)  I hope you are not trying to imply that the idea of not spending much time on food production being the thing that enables us to create us to create blessings of civilization is new for me.  It's an old idea for me and it is one of the motivators for me to do what I'm doing.  For years I have thought it to be very odd that on the one hand we say we are civilized, but on the other hand we have husbands and wives both working full-time 60 hour per week high stress jobs just to provide the basics of shelter and food and education and entertainment.  Something is wrong with that picture.
Something is wrong with that picture. Bluffy, have you data supporting your claim that "we have husbands and wives both working full-time 60 hour per week high stress jobs just to provide the basics of shelter and food and education and entertainment." That this is a prevalent circumstance? Because I don't know any couples with children wherein both adults are working full-time 60 hour per week high stress jobs just to provide the basics of shelter and food and education and entertainment. I know of couples that both work, I'm in one of them. And though the Girl's job is somewhat high stress, primarily because of despotic management, it's a 40 hour a week job. Mine is also and virtually zero stress and my income is going primarily towards buying a sailboat. My daughter and her husband both work, but they don't do much more than 40 hour weeks, ever. Another couple I know, friends of my daughter, both work, but the woman does not work full time and her job teaching teachers how to teach is not the least bit stressful while her husband works a relatively low stress 40 hour per week job,. None of these people are in financial distress nor just barely providing the basics. We all live in our own homes, all of which are pretty nice.

So where's your data?

There probably are people doing that, but most of them will be doing two or more minimum wage jobs (service industry ones for example), where most of the stress comes from the fact that you have to work 60 hours a week, for minimum wage (or below), with poor management, and that barely covers your bills. The actual stress from the job usually comes from poor staffing patterns (I'm not even supposed to be here today!), shit going wrong (oh look, the tills are broken yet again), or busy periods like Xmas sales, etc), unrealistic sales demands and the way management handle that, and co-workers/management failing at doing their jobs.
20
Don't get me wrong. We SHOULD examine those things separately. They are important. But to include them in a food production discussion is beyond stupid.

No, we should examine them TOGETHER.  You know, HOLISTICALLY.  Otherwise you are doing just what you condemn what you fondly imagine octohatter reductionist scientist do - focus on solving a little bit of a problem at the expensive of the WHOLE.

If you design a system in which everyone can produce enough calories to live on, but at a cost of having everybody dotted around on 10 acre lots, you are simply creating a new sustainability problem to replace the one you think you've solved.

Look, Dave, I appreciate, and even admire your commitment and enthusiasm to trying to "save the world" by developing ways of living more sustainably.  But the road to unsustainability is paved with solutions to one part of the problem that create problems elsewhere.

Don't take that road.
I'm not taking any wrong roads.  You know damn well that I'm working on other parts of sustainable living, not just food production, but for some reason you are all of a sudden acting like I'm not interested in that.  I am, but I'm not going to group them together.  For the same reason that you (rightly) didn't want to group human and fossil energy together.

Its not about "grouping them together" you silly man. Its about examining how changing one forces a change in the other. You know, looking at the "whole" and paying attention to the whole thing.

Quote
What's happening here is what often happens when you see that you are about to lose an argument.  Rather than admit "OK I was wrong" ... you dispense squid ink, hoping that no one will notice that you were wrong.  What were you wrong about?  Most recently ... trying to say that the fact that cereal grains were staples means that their EROI was low. (i.e. lower than say animal foods)

WHICH "animal foods" Dave? Produced HOW? The thing is though, she's right. Things become staples because its very easy to grow lots of it, and store and transport it with less labour than the alternatives.
21
How about Sustainable Transportation, Dave?
22
That entire rainforest on your shoulder is showing again Dave.
23
Dave, I'm not agreeing with your perspective on any of this stuff. You're being a colossal fuckwit.
24
No Dave, its the storability and movability that PEOPLE like because then they can set aside food for hard times, or easily give it to other people who then don't have to work to produce their own food, but can concentrate on being specialists, so more stuff gets done.

Its not like societies other than hunter-gatherers had tyrants. The Mongols were pastoralists,. But y'know


25
:facepalm:

 :whyyou:


At least you understand the point of my analogy and how it relates to the choice between being a hunter-gatherer and being an agriculturalist.