Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: look, you all have your post-atheist community here, and enjoy it. That's great.

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 - vivisectus

1
Quote
Would you like a list?

Not a bad idea. We could call it Dave vs Dave: a top ten of epic self inflicted wounds and pratfalls.

There was that time that the guy whose compost system he had inexpertly copied actually wrote the exact opposite of what he claimed. He was forced to resort to claiming that the guy probably said that because of lawyers or something. Good times.
3
But you know, those Darwinists... they just don't even believe their own history!
4
I think you should do some more historic reading about West Texas and the Llano before you get overly invested and can't back down, Dave.


Otherwise we're in for a tedious reprise of the same ol' same ol' Dave makes firm statement, is contradicted immediately by recorded facts.
What are you talking about?  That only happens to me very rarely.  On the other hand, it happens to you guys fairly regularly.


Count your pratfalls as victories and you will always be a winner.
5
Bahahahaha...  here's what happens when arrogant octohatters who have absolutely  no fucking clue what they are talking about yet get paid large salaries advise country presidents like Senegal's.

"Plant trees in a belt 10 miles wide and 4300 miles long. Derp. Derp"

Oops! 80% of them are now dead! Imagine that!

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/great-green-wall-stop-desertification-not-so-much-180960171/
Dave, did you read that article?

Do you think it says what you thought it said when you posted the link?

Do you stand by your "Bahahahaha...Derp.Derp" comments?
Yes of course I read it and yes I stand by my comment. And yes it's true that later on in the article there are some interesting efforts described after the colossal failure that I was referring to.

Look guys it is not rocket-scienciness. We know Dave has a PhD in truth-detection, so we know that when he superficially skimmed that article for nuggets, his amazing high-speed mind immediately perceived what was actually going on, enabling him to jump to the right conclusion. Hence it is perfectly reasonable to assume some octohatter told the president of Senegal to plant those trees in a stupid way. I mean there is no indication in the article that this didn't happen, and it fits all the known facts, such as the fact that sometimes presidents get advice, the fact that a degree in science makes you really dumb except for a few exceptions, and the fact that Dave is a genius.
6
In any case the Llano estacado used to be teeming with bison herds and other life and now it is mostly dead like Westley in The Princess Bride, kept alive only by Center pivot irrigation but that too will soon fail  according to this article ...

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/08/vanishing-midwest-ogallala-aquifer-drought/
Cows can't replace irrigation. Stop the irrigation and let Nature do her thing.
Nope.  As weird as it sounds, properly managed cows are the only thing that will save areas like that.
The ONLY thing

We know this because of SCIENCINESS
7
TBF, I don't think Dave understood most of what vivisectus said. Not the words so much as the point made.

Oh, ye of little faith! Dave has a Phd in truth detection, remember. The truthiness or lack thereof just becomes apparent to his high-speed mind directly. It effortlessly penetrates the bulwarks of jargon thrown up by the kind of ivory tower, hoity-toity elitist technocrats and leaves just the kind of red-blooded, robust homespun truth that the real experts, the people getting their hands dirty on the bleeding edge of Christian land-stewardship research, already know.
The evidence does seem to indicates this, yes.
Lol

Some of my better work on here, if I say so myself.

I like that he admits that he just sees what he already thinks he knows.

But that he never seems to have realized this, and you just know that this is because it involved his own praise of himself, which immediately claimed all of his attention to the exclusion of anything else.
8
TBF, I don't think Dave understood most of what vivisectus said. Not the words so much as the point made.
Oh, ye of little faith! Dave has a Phd in truth detection, remember. The truthiness or lack thereof just becomes apparent to his high-speed mind directly. It effortlessly penetrates the bulwarks of jargon thrown up by ivory tower, hoity-toity elitist technocrats and leaves just the kind of red-blooded, robust homespun truth that the real experts, the people getting their hands dirty on the bleeding edge of Christian land-stewardship research, already know.
The evidence does seem to indicates this, yes.
It sure does Dave, it sure does. Just look at the way you just know, beyond any doubt, that the Sahara is degraded by human actions and that it cannot be true that the Amazon relies on it for fertilization.

Lesser mortals would have to compare different models and see how well they fit the known facts. Not you. You can declare that you know beyond any doubt what the truth about it is.

Because you already know what the truth is. Any facts that are compatible with any part of this truth are evidence for all of it. Thus, evidence for the Sahara once being green is evidence for your particular idea that it was degraded by human agricultural practices.

And any facts that are not compatible can be dismissed out of hand... like you did just now. Because how can it be true that a part of the wonderful Earth System thrives with an abundance of life because another part is what you call degraded? That is just anathema to your whole belief system, and it can simply be dismissed as a lunatic theory without any further explanation.

PhD-level truth detection in action, right there.
9
No, that's not my duty.  My duty is twofold ...

TRUTH. LOVE.

Always strive to be truthful no matter how tempting it is to lie even just a little bit.  Always try to love my neighbor - even you - no matter how unlovable.

If we do these two things ... but use words like snappy-offyness ... then we will do good for the cause of science.  (And business) (And community) (And family)


I see. So would it be safe to say that you feel that using terms like snappy-offyness rather than less ambiguous terms represents an ideological commitment to what we could call a higher, shall we say, truthiness, in your opinion?
No just more understandable by a wider audience.

But we just saw that often ambiguous terms actually make things less understandable. Not more.

Also, if that is all you meant then your grandiose speech on your duty to truth and love seems a bit apropos of nothing.
10
No, that's not my duty.  My duty is twofold ...

TRUTH. LOVE.

Always strive to be truthful no matter how tempting it is to lie even just a little bit.  Always try to love my neighbor - even you - no matter how unlovable.

If we do these two things ... but use words like snappy-offyness ... then we will do good for the cause of science.  (And business) (And community) (And family)


I see. So would it be safe to say that you feel that using terms like snappy-offyness rather than less ambiguous terms represents an ideological commitment to what we could call a higher, shall we say, truthiness, in your opinion?
No just more understandable by a wider audience.

But we just saw that often ambiguous terms actually make things less understandable. Not more.
11
TBF, I don't think Dave understood most of what vivisectus said. Not the words so much as the point made.

Oh, ye of little faith! Dave has a Phd in truth detection, remember. The truthiness or lack thereof just becomes apparent to his high-speed mind directly. It effortlessly penetrates the bulwarks of jargon thrown up by the kind of ivory tower, hoity-toity elitist technocrats and leaves just the kind of red-blooded, robust homespun truth that the real experts, the people getting their hands dirty on the bleeding edge of Christian land-stewardship research, already know.
12
No, that's not my duty.  My duty is twofold ...

TRUTH. LOVE.

Always strive to be truthful no matter how tempting it is to lie even just a little bit.  Always try to love my neighbor - even you - no matter how unlovable.

If we do these two things ... but use words like snappy-offyness ... then we will do good for the cause of science.  (And business) (And community) (And family)


I see. So would it be safe to say that you feel that using terms like snappy-offyness rather than less ambiguous terms represents an ideological commitment to what we could call a higher, shall we say, truthiness, in your opinion?
13
While dropping my son off to work this morning, we got to chatting about Dave's endorsement of snappy-offyness as a sound ecological term, and his general aversion to words that make him worry that people other than him, the common people if you will, would find hard to follow.

He made the point that the problem is that language can be approached in a descriptive and a prescriptive way, and that this almost forces the use of words outside the general lexicon in scientific endeavors.

If we all approach language in a prescriptive way, then words would just mean what it says in the dictionary. If this was the case, then one of the uses of the word "literally" would not currently be something like "emphatically" or "totally". If we approach it in a descriptive way, then the meaning of a word is defined by the way people use it. In reality both the definition and usage of a word influence it's meaning, and besides, words can have multiple definitions in a dictionary.

So many words can be understood in various ways, and these uses can change over time. You really cannot have that in any sort of scientific setting: it could easily become ambiguous what you are actually talking about.

Just look at the way the YEC community struggles with the word "theory". If that word was not in common usage, where it means something closer to "hypothesis", they would never have gotten so confused about what scientists actually mean when they talk about the theory of evolution. The very lack of a reverse Swahili pig latin word has inadvertently rendered them unable to grasp what a scientific theory really is, the poor souls!

Surely it is your duty to keep the common run, who are less linguistically gifted than your good self, from accidentally making such mistakes by using words that are unambiguous, even if this means they are less commonly used?
14
But maybe I am just grumpy and uncharitable because he made me an hour late from work yesterday, so currently I feel nothing good comes from royalty.
15
Dunno... Charles at his most likeable always struck me as a vaguely absentminded eccentric uncle that is really hard work if you sit next to him at family parties. At his most unlikeable he is horribly entitled and out of touch.  Not sure i'd pick him as a champion for any cause i cared about. But hey, better than nothing.
16
He also talks to his plants and thinks this helps them grow.
17
It seems that there is no such thing as different biomes. There is just one single eco-system, which is basically rural Missouri. It is just that folks have let it go a bit, to different extents in different areas, and they need Dave to show them how to fix it with cows.
 
Africa is basically rural Missouri that is a bit warmer and dryer, with lions in, what people have messed up. With lots of cows, you could just turn it into it's natural state of being rural Missouri, only with zebras instead of deer.

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

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

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

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

Go on.

:popcorn:

LOLOLOLOL

So you agree with me that according to you, whats wrong with the Sahara is that it is basically not enough like Missouri?
18
Look I'm a bit new to the "brittleness" thing myself .
Maybe you should reserve judgment, then, on whether 2/3 of the earth's land surface falls in this category, and requires billions more cattle to "restore" it to health.
It's hard to believe that you actually managed to earn a PhD. Maybe you didn't and you've been bagging us all this time.

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

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

You mean the type of fallacy?
No. You need to go read up on this. There is indeed a fallacy called argument from Authority but there is also a legitimate argument from Authority. the former is when the supposed Authority is not really an authority At all. The latter is when he is an actual authority.

It is just so you that you told me to go read up on this and then got it wrong.
19
TR Embassy and Animal Shelter / Re: Raccoon thread
I really don't get the whole raccoons are sweet and cute thing.

You are dead to me
20
Awww...
Poor Dave!
Pointing out the Walter Mitty nature of his plans, or the preachiness of his continuous stream of unsupported assertions is...

being a dick!

How about you deal with the questions:

How about you go fuck yourself?

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

ARE the problem in our world today.

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

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

Totally ruined, that plan. Whenever I try to think of any character, I just see Dave now.
21
It seems that there is no such thing as different biomes. There is just one single eco-system, which is basically rural Missouri. It is just that folks have let it go a bit, to different extents in different areas, and they need Dave to show them how to fix it with cows.
 
Africa is basically rural Missouri that is a bit warmer and dryer, with lions in, what people have messed up. With lots of cows, you could just turn it into it's natural state of being rural Missouri, only with zebras instead of deer.

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

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

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

Almost everywhere just needs to be more rural Missouri, so you get more ecosystem for all the animals that live in rural Missouri. This is called "healing the land". Pretty soon, everyone will realize this because of Dave's tireless and highly effective research and activism, and then the whole world will basically be rural Missouri, with the possible exception of the poles.
No but it would be nice to have LIFE on all Land surfaces wherever possible.  Wouldn't you agree? Or would you prefer that places like West Texas become more like the Sahara? that is, pretty lifeless. Kind of like a moonscape.

You forgot to ask my why I am against life, Dave.
22
Why do we want to use specialized language? Could it possibly be the same motivation that the medieval Popes and Cardinals and priests had?

Hmmm ...

When engineers say "tensile strength" rather than "stretchiness", they are just trying to maintain the power of a religious hierarchy. Yup!
23
I can see some definition of "brittle" applying to land whose ecology is relatively non-resilient to perturbations, like various anthropogenic impositions.  Land at the edges of deserts, for instance.

That is typically refered to as "fragile".

Savory uses "brittle" so he can blame all land degradation everywhere on not enough cows.
Exactly.  Why not just use the word 'fragile'?  I suspect Savory is trying to conflate the metaphorical sense of 'brittle' (i.e. synonymous with 'fragile') with the physical property of a (desert) crust.

No, the site says it is because plant materials get all dry and snappy offy.

Not making this up. Just paraphrasing.
Yup.

Welcome to actual, real, feet on the ground, dirt under the nails science.

Where words like snap-offy are fine.

In fact, they are better than reverse Swahili Pig Latin words because most common people understand them.

We should reform all of science the same way. I mean why measure radiation if you can just eyeball it and make a subjective scale of the general glowiness of stars? I am sure it would make the math so much simpler. And we could stop wasting money and fancy words doing white bloodcell counts and biopsies and such. We just take a look and decide if someone looks kinda cancery.

We could fast-track medicines if we stopped insisting on all this hoity-toity double-talk and annoying double-blind testing. We just kinda eyeball it and see if it side-effecty.

This kinda red-blooded, homespun and robust science-wordiness is fine. In fact, it is better, because Dave doesn't even have to look up the words or anything.
24
Look I'm a bit new to the "brittleness" thing myself .
Maybe you should reserve judgment, then, on whether 2/3 of the earth's land surface falls in this category, and requires billions more cattle to "restore" it to health.
It's hard to believe that you actually managed to earn a PhD. Maybe you didn't and you've been bagging us all this time.

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

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

You mean the type of fallacy?
25
The reason this is important as I understand it is...

DEAD VEGETATION NEEDS TO BE RECYCLED QUICKLY

If it's not recycled fairly quickly either by creepy-crawlies or by grazing herds, then the ecosystem will slowly die.
People in Ireland and Denmark and so on, while harvesting peat, are digging up bodies that are hundreds to thousands of years old, wearing clothing and other artifacts, sometimes with identifiable food in their stomachs, like cereals and nuts.

But not nipples.

Maybe the nipples decompose and sustain the boglands?