Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Show Posts

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

Messages - RAFH

2
... you're not building up organic matter in the soil.  It's just pretty much staying constant.
You have no evidence that you are building up organic matter in your soil either.
You are making unwarranted extrapolations from systems that bear very little resemblance to yours.
For that matter, Bluffy doesn't have any information on borealis's lawn and how much SOM or C it has and whether or not those are increasing or decreasing.
3
I sort of get the impression Bluffy likes others that are enthusiatically willfully militantly ignorant, he likes the company, it emboldens him.
:sadyes:  I think that's why he's been so pumped up ever since the election.
Yep.
4
In many cases, indeed, most, prostitution is slavery.
That may be true on a global scale, but that is a failure of law enforcement, and/or a failure of the legal code in the country in question. There's no reason why it should be slavery, any more than (for example) stripping should be slavery. If most strippers aren't slaves, at least in countries with legal codes we'd considerable reasonable, then there's absolutely no good reason why prostitutes should be.

Ditto for farm workers who aren't paid for their work, cannot leave the farm, their boss can beat, injure, and even kill them with impunity, they can be bought and sold at the boss' whim and must do whatever their "boss" tells them to, regardless of it's nature or legality. They are slaves. Even though, in many cases, farm workers are not slaves, they are paid for their work, they can leave the job any time they like, their bosses can not beat, injure or even kill them with impunity, they can not be bought and sold on the boss' whim and they do not have to do whatever the boss tells them to.

It's not the job description, it's the working conditions. There are slaves in homes as servants, on farms and ranches, in mines and factories. Slavery is slavery.

If you worked in my mine and I did not pay you, forced you to do my bidding under threat of injury or perhaps even death, made you work whatever hours and days I chose, and you were not able to leave the mine or even complain about it, I'd consider that slavery. I'm pretty sure you would too. Most anybody would.


5
Morality rating system - 10=good, 1=bad

Sex with wife - 10
Sex by unmarried person with unmarried prostitute who is not being coerced by a pimp, etc - 7
Ditto above, but coerced by pimp - 1
Sex by married person without spousal consent with unmarried prostitute who is not being coerced - 5 (depends on reason)
Ditto above but with someone else's spouse - 1

Does that clear things up?
Only insofar as you still don't get it and are being flippant about something that is much more complex than you seem to think.

Prostitution isn't simply defined by a pimp-prostitute relationship. A woman may be a prostitute because she was driven to it as a young homeless girl, or because she was uneducated and had little other choice of employment, or because of extreme poverty, or because of substance abuse, none of these are a result of real choice, and her consent is compromised by these externalities.
This is all true, but arguably applies to any non-ideal career. Lots of people hate their jobs.
True, but in most of those cases, they could, if they wanted to, quit. Without the threat of a beating or worse.
Ok, so we agree that slavery should be illegal. I thought we were talking about prostitution.
In many cases, indeed, most, prostitution is slavery.
6
No you're wrong as usual about pretty much everything. I did write it and I did mail it.  Tough shit for them if they don't want to cash it.

Well, no question you wrote a check, albeit well after the fact. But there's no evidence whatsoever you mailed it.

Other than your assertion you did.

Unfortunately, given your credibility is negative, your word on the matter is meaningless.

What a bluffoon.
7
There's exactly the dumbfuck bullshit I was explaining in my last post, Thanks for that, Dave. You are acting like "kremlin meddling in the election" only counts if they directly hacked voting machines. More than a dozen intelligence agencies have said Russia actively tried on multiple levels to "meddle" in our election through multiple methods.
17, to be exact.
Quote
This is either disingenuous bullshitting on your part or you are that fucking dumb enough to buy that simplistic talking point and echo it. Which is it?
Militant ignorance really blurs the line between those seemingly distinct alternatives.
Not just militant, but willfully and enthusiastically so.

I sort of get the impression Bluffy likes others that are enthusiatically willfully militantly ignorant, he likes the company, it emboldens him.

It's all part and parcel of the Bluffoonic Code.
8
Dave still didn't answer my question. :(
I'm sorry, there appears to be a misunderstanding regarding this Bluffy 1.0 version. As is clear in the advertising, the Bluffy 1.0 version is incapable of answering questions. For question answering capability, you would need to upgrade to the Bluffy 2.0 version. Unfortunately, due to a lack of consumer interest, that version was never fully developed.
9
Morality rating system - 10=good, 1=bad

Sex with wife - 10
Sex by unmarried person with unmarried prostitute who is not being coerced by a pimp, etc - 7
Ditto above, but coerced by pimp - 1
Sex by married person without spousal consent with unmarried prostitute who is not being coerced - 5 (depends on reason)
Ditto above but with someone else's spouse - 1

Does that clear things up?
Only insofar as you still don't get it and are being flippant about something that is much more complex than you seem to think.

Prostitution isn't simply defined by a pimp-prostitute relationship. A woman may be a prostitute because she was driven to it as a young homeless girl, or because she was uneducated and had little other choice of employment, or because of extreme poverty, or because of substance abuse, none of these are a result of real choice, and her consent is compromised by these externalities.
This is all true, but arguably applies to any non-ideal career. Lots of people hate their jobs.
True, but in most of those cases, they could, if they wanted to, quit. Without the threat of a beating or worse.
10
I don't even think it's at 50' N.
Just about at 50N. 49.2827, Or about 43 nautical miles short.
Depending, of course, on what part of Vancouver you are discussing.
11
"Nothing novel"

 Right. Ranchers all over the world have been doing what Savory says to do for centuries.

 Oh wait.
Wow, talk about missing the context. Did I say anything about "ranchers all over the world have be[/url]en doing what Savory says to do for centuries? In case you can't bear to answer without lying, I can assure you, that's not what I said. Part and parcel of your problem with creating strawmen.

My comments were:
Quote
This is the only part of Lizzie's post worth noting and responding to ... everything else is garbage ...
Quote
What they DO do is migrate in herds - because herds give them a couple of kinds of protection.  They evolve to travel together, and to live and graze in herds.

Exactly.

Which is the key insight that Allan Savory observed and is now replicating all over the world.

And this one key insight means the difference between destroying topsoil and building topsoil.

This one key insight means that "grazing herds" should NOT be excluded from land but rather should be INTRODUCED to degrading land.

This is why Allan Savory will go down in history as one of the world's greatest ecologists.

Everything else in Lizzie's post is just noise and distraction from this central point. (She's good at noise)
Savory's key insight was that some herbavores form herds and live and travel and graze while in herd formation?

Wow, it's amazing nobody else in the several thousands of years of animal agriculture and husbandry had ever noticed that.
 

I can only figure it's been some sort of deeply buried behavior that required so long to figure out.

Truly, if this is Savory's contribution to the world, he deserves what he gets.
Or your comment here: [url=http://talkrational.org/index.php?action=post;quote=75216;topic=188.19800]http://talkrational.org/index.php?action=post;quote=75216;topic=188.19800[/url]
Quote
She agrees on the most important point which is  that they have evolved to live and travel and graze together in herds for protection.

 I don't really care about her quibble that they supposedly don't bunch up tighter when threatened. That matters not at all to Savory's key observation.

 Herbivores move in groups. That's the important part.
Which seems to say you believe the most important discovery by Savory was that herbivores live in herds. Which I again note seems to have been common knowledge for centuries. Do you contend that animal herders have not known that herbivores live in herds until Savory pointed it out to them? That these "herders" were entirely unaware of this behavior of herbivores prior to Savory?

Indeed, you even discount the whole issue of the herds grazing while bunched up under threat of predators in favor of just Savory discovered herbivores live in herds.

What a bluffoon.




12
The whole Savory show is just that, a show for the gullible. All he has is a slightly modified rotational grazing system. Which actually go back centuries. You, of course, have modified his modified system to use a very small robo-pen and many, many moves per day with multiple animal species. Nothing at all like what Savory advocates. If you disagree, then write Mr Savory a letter, one you post here before sending it off. A letter that describes your new and improved version of his. And ask for his impressions, his critique, as it were. Which you will then post here. Then we'll see what's what.
Actually, one of us should write it. Dave never will. Could be amusing to see the result.
I agree. I think I'll take some of my recuperation time and write that letter. I'll post it here for comment and criticism. I wouldn't want to be sending off something that did not accurately reflect the situation.
13
She agrees on the most important point which is  that they have evolved to live and travel and graze together in herds for protection.

 I don't really care about her quibble that they supposedly don't bunch up tighter when threatened. That matters not at all to Savory's key observation.

 Herbivores move in groups. That's the important part.
Many fish do as well. Humans too. Even clouds often travel in groups.

So I guess this means the whole point of bunching up in the face of predators, previously one of your most important sticking points, is irrelevant since the herd doesn't graze when threatened and when they do graze, they spread out. Pretty much blows the whole concept.

BTW, I am pretty sure this "key observation" is nothing novel, nothing insightful, animal herders seem to have figured that out long, long ago.

What a bluffoon. Can't even defend his own assertions when latching onto the weakest agreement by his detractors. Hey, Bluffy, did you know all those herds contain warm blooded animals of the same species. Shocking, I know, but true. And I know of noone that disputes that fact. No one at all.
14
Reposting ...

This is the only part of Lizzie's post worth noting and responding to ... everything else is garbage ...
Quote
What they DO do is migrate in herds - because herds give them a couple of kinds of protection.  They evolve to travel together, and to live and graze in herds.

Exactly.

Which is the key insight that Allan Savory observed and is now replicating all over the world.

And this one key insight means the difference between destroying topsoil and building topsoil.

This one key insight means that "grazing herds" should NOT be excluded from land but rather should be INTRODUCED to degrading land.

This is why Allan Savory will go down in history as one of the world's greatest ecologists.

Everything else in Lizzie's post is just noise and distraction from this central point. (She's good at noise)
but Dave, you do understand that she explicitly pointed out that those herds don't graze bunched up. THat they bunch and don't graze when predators are around and they spread out to graze when the coast is clear. Right? So, you are taking that out of context and she does not agree on the actual point you are claiming. Is that an honest thing to do on your part?
In Bluffoonylvania, that's how it's done.

Of course, as the reigning absolute monarch of Bluffoonylvania as well as it's only citizen, he can do that without criticism, at least not from within Bluffoonylvania.

What a bluffoon.
15
Hi David. Another day and you still haven't found enough balls to go outside and take a photo.

 :sad:

Or address even just one of the 100 evidences. Nope, he's not going to do that. Uh huh. He knows where that will end up. Nor will he revisit Lake Kalksjon, nor Suigetsu, nor any of the many other subjects he's posted on and eventually badgered from.

What a bluffoon.
16
This is the only part of Lizzie's post worth noting and responding to ... everything else is garbage ...
Quote
What they DO do is migrate in herds - because herds give them a couple of kinds of protection.  They evolve to travel together, and to live and graze in herds.

Exactly.
herd
hərd/
noun
Quote
1.  large group of animals, especially hoofed mammals, that live, feed, or migrate together or are kept together as livestock.
I doubt that any serious ranchers would consider two goats in a cage to be a "herd".
Not just ranchers, pretty much just about anyone over the age of 6 would probably not consider two goats in a cage to be a herd. Not even a mini-herd. But we all know how Bluffy redefines whatever terms he needs to in order to make himself a winner, a hero, a savior of the world.

What a bluffoon.
17
I have no interest in that. Note the thread title.
Umm, Dave, according to you doing what the thread title says involves using Savory's methods.

So, that means you think convincing people of the validity of Savory's methods is directly relevant to the thread title.
Yes and it appears that Lizzie is convinced of one of the most important parts of Savory's system. See her post (bold red part) that I quoted earlier.
Oh my! Savory has discovered some herbivores graze in herds. What a break through, what insight! What genius.



Other than the obvious, that some herbivores, indeed, many herbivores that evolved in savanna like environments, live in herds, what other marvelous discoveries has Savory made?

Pretty much everything else he's promoted is just bullshit. Herds don't graze while they bunch up under the threat of predators, they are in a defensive posture and eating is about the last thing on their minds. They certainly are not going to be putting their heads down to graze while facing a predator that wants to eat them. No, they don't do that. It would be suicidal, at best. No, they keep their heads up and their eyes on the predator. And if necessary, they'll attack the predator(s) and kill them. Or at least run them off.

Indeed, while the herd may number 1000s, the predators typically number less than a half dozen, and more usually just one. The herd could easily destroy the predator(s), get all bunched up and then go into a stampede. Ever seen a real stampede Bluffy, not much will stop it. Certainly not a couple of predators. They'd be crushed and stomped into the ground. About all that will be stomped into the ground. And the herd will move on.

The whole Savory show is just that, a show for the gullible. All he has is a slightly modified rotational grazing system. Which actually go back centuries. You, of course, have modified his modified system to use a very small robo-pen and many, many moves per day with multiple animal species. Nothing at all like what Savory advocates. If you disagree, then write Mr Savory a letter, one you post here before sending it off. A letter that describes your new and improved version of his. And ask for his impressions, his critique, as it were. Which you will then post here. Then we'll see what's what.

Of course, Savory may have a difficult time explaining the differences and similarities of his system and yours. Seems he's not very good at the details involved. Neither are you. And certainly neither of your are very good on the documentation side of things. At least nothing's been posted. You don't even keep records in the first place. You don't know what was there before you started, you don't really know exactly what you've done in the meantime and you have no real idea of what, if anything, you've accomplished. It's all anecdotal. The world is supposed to take you on your word.

Hell, you can't even stay on topic with your own project. Remember, this started as a supposed experiment involving sustaining one adult on one acre of woodlands, as a demonstration of it's suitability for use worldwide. Except, it didn't even get off the ground as advertised, instead of one adult being sustained on one acre of woodlands, after a couple of months, two acres weren't sufficient. You supplemented the diets of your animals, you supplemented your own diet. And even then you couldn't make it work. And still haven't. Mostly you've been practicing the age old technique of counting your eggs before you even get your chickens. But back to the sustainability of your efforts to date, as it turns out, you've essentially abandoned the woodlands experiment and switched over to using 8 acres to sustain one adult. Except that's not worked out either, still supplementing your and your animals' diets. And you still haven't survived for more than about a year. So, nothing with regard to variations in temperatures, rainfall, pest invasions, sunlight, plant diseases, wind, etc that typically occur over a period of years, like 10 or more.

And you have no records to show what you did, what the inputs were, what the product was. It's all verbal and anecdotal. Basically, not scientific at all. Keeping good records is one of the primary requirements in science. It is the only way someone else could be able to attempt to replicate your efforts. No directions, no progress.

What a bluffoon.
18
FFS. There's really no point in discussing *anything* with Dave if he's going to invent fake quotes instead of actually addressing critiques of his ideas.
Not just fake, but utterly irrelevant.

It's the Bluffoonic Way.
19
Take your lithium, dude.
You're all about destruction aren't you?  Destroy minds with lithium.  Destroy immune systems with vaccines.  Destroy land with confused thinking about herbivores.  On and on.  You should have your PhD revoked.
No, Bluffy, apparently it's you that's confused.
Lithium does not destroy minds, it calms them. Some minds need calming at times so they can work. Perhaps you should look into it. Might ease your inner rage.
Vaccines do not destroy immune systems, they augment them.
I don't see any indication that Vox is confused nor that his thinking about herbivores is destroying any land.

I'd suggest you should have your birth certificate revoked.
20
This is the only part of Lizzie's post worth noting and responding to ... everything else is garbage ...
Quote
What they DO do is migrate in herds - because herds give them a couple of kinds of protection.  They evolve to travel together, and to live and graze in herds.

Exactly.

Which is the key insight that Allan Savory observed and is now replicating all over the world.

And this one key insight means the difference between destroying topsoil and building topsoil.

This one key insight means that "grazing herds" should NOT be excluded from land but rather should be INTRODUCED to degrading land.

This is why Allan Savory will go down in history as one of the world's greatest ecologists.

Everything else in Lizzie's post is just noise and distraction from this central point. (She's good at noise)
Savory's key insight was that some herbavores form herds and live and travel and graze while in herd formation?

Wow, it's amazing nobody else in the several thousands of years of animal agriculture and husbandry had ever noticed that. 

I can only figure it's been some sort of deeply buried behavior that required so long to figure out.

Truly, if this is Savory's contribution to the world, he deserves what he gets.
21
Would you also like me to "take it point by point" if somebody starts posting about fake moon landings?
Yes, if you feel so inclined and you disagree with the poster's statements. That's what discussion boards are for. They are not intended to be soapboxs upon which folks like you get to preach without criticism and comment. They are for engagement and discussion. Apparently you didn't get the memo (though you've been advised of all of this literally hundreds of times by dozens of posters).

In this case, it's your claims and statements that are at issue. You came here and espoused them freely and of your own accord. No one forced you to do so. In fact, no one invited you, not that an invitation is necessary. One would naturally assume, given this is a discussion board, your purpose would would be to discuss your claims and statements. If that is not the case, then about the only reason for you to be here, at least from the viewpoint of most of the members (apparently everyone but you) is for you to make a fool of yourself and for us to point and laugh.

Over a decade of interaction or at least exposure to you indicates the only reason to engage with you at all is for amusement and to point and laugh.

What a bluffoon.
22
You're an idiot, dude.  Stop spamming the thread.
You seem tense, Dave  You should crowdfund, maybe start a Kickstarter campaign for a prostitute.
A woman you can pay to not laugh at you.
Ah, that would take all the fun out of it.
23
Morality rating system - 10=good, 1=bad

Sex with wife - 10
Sex by unmarried person with unmarried prostitute who is not being coerced by a pimp, etc - 7
Ditto above, but coerced by pimp - 1
Sex by married person without spousal consent with unmarried prostitute who is not being coerced - 5 (depends on reason)
Ditto above but with someone else's spouse - 1

Does that clear things up?
Only insofar as you still don't get it and are being flippant about something that is much more complex than you seem to think.

Prostitution isn't simply defined by a pimp-prostitute relationship. A woman may be a prostitute because she was driven to it as a young homeless girl, or because she was uneducated and had little other choice of employment, or because of extreme poverty, or because of substance abuse, none of these are a result of real choice, and her consent is compromised by these externalities. You can't know about her degree of consent when you just hire her for a quick fuck.

You know the married woman is consenting enthusiastically. So that is better than taking advantage of a prostitute.
There are many married women who are not consenting enthusiastically, but rather out of a sense of duty, or perhaps fear that their husband will leave them and they will be disadvantaged economically.  And there are also a fair number of prostitutes who simply enjoy sex more than other women and they enjoy other aspects as well, such as the variety, the no strings attached aspect, etc.  One thing I will agree with you on though, is that it's a very complex topic, and every situation is different. 
Keep telling yourself there are street prostitutes who are in the sex trade because they really enjoy sex. It's a fantasy.

A few of the actors in porn feel less exploited, in part because they are paid well and the work is much safer than hooking on the streets. There are niche professions such as cam girls, sex therapists, etc., who have much more control over what they are required to do and with whom they do it, and some of these women may actually enjoy the work. Only some, though. I've seen documentaries that feature porn actors being coerced into acts they clearly don't want to perform. You'd never guess from seeing the final edited product.

Prostitutes rarely get to choose their Johns, and many of the men who seek them out are pretty awful human beings, both physically and mentally. They are always in danger of being assaulted, are very likely to have experienced beatings (by johns as well as pimps) and other abuse. They are often afraid of the police, for good reasons. They are more likely to be murdered than women in ordinary situations.

Through my work, I knew a lot of prostitutes because I looked after their children. I never encountered a single one who enjoyed it. They did it for money, to support themselves and their kids, or to support their drug habits. One mother came in one day on top of the moon happy, because she'd been hired as a stripper for a club, which meant she could stop hooking. This woman was a minority and illiterate, with two children to support, and fiercely determined they'd have a better life than her.

I also have known women who were in the sex trade briefly and got out. They were defiantly positive about the sex trade until they got out of it, and then the horror stories started coming out.

It's a sick, abusive, exploitive industry, Dave, regardless of what your fantasies lead you to believe.

You sound naïve and out of touch.
Just part and parcel of the bluffoonic profile.
24
You do not know the definition of a shyster.  You have some shyster characteristics.  Savory does not.
The Great Bluffoon has spoken. All hear and obey.
25
I don't see any science going on right now with you people.
Two fold reason for that: One - discussions, if one can call them that, with you does not constitute science, but rather entertainment; two - you are unable to see any "science" that disagrees with your apriori assumptions and preconclusions.

You can correct me if I've got the wrong impression, but  at the moment I have the impression that you guys think that planting trees is an economical way to halt the spread of the desert
Consider yourself corrected then. Trees are one part of one system that can economically address desertification. (note, you still need to discern between naturally existing deserts and desertification of lands, often lands adjacent to existing deserts, generally the result of human endeavors that failed to take reality into account) This has been shown in numerous large scale projects over the past 60 to 70 years, which definitively refutes your claims that HMG ala Savory and especially your own meager interpretations of such is the only means by which desertification can be addressed. For one aspect of this, you still have not demonstrated in any manner whatsoever the costs of any such projects, either Savoryesque or involving trees or whatever, including your own, nor provided any comparisons of those costs or the benefits thereof.

and you think Allan Savory is a shyster for saying that it's not,
that's not the reason for believing Savory is a shyster, as has been explained to you numerous times. It's his hyperbolic claims, his lack of supporting evidence, his insistence his methods can not even be quantified and analyzed, and his use of dubious photography.

but rather  holistic management of grazing animals is. 
well, that is part of it as he's suggesting that actually functioning projects involving trees or whatever other than cows, simply don't exist, despite the fact they are there and are working.

And I've given you significant evidence of both statements...
Not really.
We have the economist article which tells about the 60 billion trees planted by the Chinese that are now mostly dead.
This article is primarily an opinion piece, probably filler. It's unsigned, it has few if any citations or references. (as has been pointed out to you numerous times). It is rather vague and filled with intimations, rather than cited facts. I'd also note, again, that while the article notes the death of planted trees (without citation or reference), it does so with the explanation those trees were cuttings which have a relatively short life spans and fails to address the question of what is the outcome in those areas where it is claimed the planted trees died. Were they replaced? Did the trees produce any offspring or encourage the growth of other tree species?  What was the net effect on overall tree coverage? What were the effects of the plantings, good, bad or indifferent? The article doesn't provide such answers, it doesn't even ask the questions, though it certainly intimates there are "problems".

And the reforestation in Ethiopia is in an entirely  different category so it's not comparable. 
Different category from what? You keep saying this and pointing to rainfall figures for the region in Ethiopia but have yet to supply such figures for all the failure locations within the Chinese projects. For that matter, you have presented little to nothing regarding exactly what and where those sites are and the magnitude of the efforts there and the results. Basically you've lumped 400million hectares spread over a region 4500km east to west into one big amorphous blob. The fact is the project area in Ethiopia was severely degraded, regardless of rainfall. The before photographs over decades document that. Nor can one argue with the after photographs, taken from the same locations, which show a significant change.

And there are plenty of case studies where the trees are not growing but vegetative cover is increasing thanks to Allan Savory's principles.
Plenty of cases? Really? Can you identify and describe these case studies. 

So it seems to me that you're not being very scientific on this topic at all.
Absolutely, asking for supporting evidence of claims made in opinion articles and of your own claims, is not scientific at all. Good science means just making up your mind how things are and sticking to it no matter what.

Your last sentence above explains it all.