|
fishmech posted:Except they very often don't have to travel from "middle of nowhere" Mexico in the first place (they also don't tend to get shipped from Mexico to the US in large numbers in the first place but that's another issue, you're the one who insisted on tomatoes from Oregon vs Mexico). And as we've already established tomatoes are a very minor crop in Oregon in particular, and not likely to be within close distance. You also need only minor refrigeration if any at all, because ideal shipping conditions for tomatoes are to ship them unripened at about 60-65 F, which is easy to attain in a cargo hold. It's not like we're shipping milk here. I didn't insist on anything, I just pulled a random crop out of nowhere. Use blackberries or oats or something, if you prefer. The fact of the matter is that most crops imported from Mexico travel by truck, which is far from carbon free transportation like you keep implying, and if you have a locally grown endemic crop then it's probably coming with a lower carbon cost. Nowhere did I say that you have to choose a small farm, you're the one who keeps falsely creating that association fishmech posted:The point is that you're ludicrously and falsely assuming local must equal less carbon which is simply not true. This is because you have an orthrorexic obsession with "local" food. And as we've further already established, it's very easy for local food to build up more carbon and other resource uses when you're trying to grow a crop in an unfavorable climate (like Oregon) instead of a favorable one (like Florida or the western Mexican coastal states). Good thing that I didn't say "only eat local no matter what" then, you illiterate dipshit
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I didn't insist on anything, I just pulled a random crop out of nowhere. Use blackberries or oats or something, if you prefer. The fact of the matter is that most crops imported from Mexico travel by truck, which is far from carbon free transportation like you keep implying, and if you have a locally grown endemic crop then it's probably coming with a lower carbon cost. Nowhere did I say that you have to choose a small farm, you're the one who keeps falsely creating that association Look, you specifically said tomatoes in Oregon and Mexico as your example. As it turns out if you're eating tomatoes from Oregon, you're likely to be eating them from a small time farm or as a minor side-crop of a larger farm, since Oregon isn't big tomato growing country. Thus, they're likely to have extra carbon footprint before they even leave the farm's gates. And nobody ever said any of the transportation at hand is carbon free, just that carbon used in everything before hauling it to your hungry mouth is far more important than the minor amount generated in transport, especially since long distance transport can often end up more carbon efficient. Nice shout I guess, but the fact is there's no inherent benefit to eating local, as we already established. Try arguing in a civilized manner when you try to defend your orthorexic drivel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I mean, I agree with you that the courts' interpretation of antitrust has changed dramatically since 1970. That's probably why the case quality needed to be so high before indictment. Do you agree with you, though? ... I don't see where you see any conflict in those statements, so I'm going to assume it's just your usual stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
Kalman posted:... I don't see where you see any conflict in those statements, so I'm going to assume it's just your usual stupidity. He still seems confused that one can be guilty of antitrust violations but also not a monopoly. Basically the same thing as the last couple pages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Look, you specifically said tomatoes in Oregon and Mexico as your example. As it turns out if you're eating tomatoes from Oregon, you're likely to be eating them from a small time farm or as a minor side-crop of a larger farm, since Oregon isn't big tomato growing country. Thus, they're likely to have extra carbon footprint before they even leave the farm's gates. And nobody ever said any of the transportation at hand is carbon free, just that carbon used in everything before hauling it to your hungry mouth is far more important than the minor amount generated in transport, especially since long distance transport can often end up more carbon efficient. Again, you're focusing too much on a specific example, and in the process you're missing the overall point. You keep claiming that trucking in food grown in Mexico has less carbon cost than trucking food grown in the same state. Obviously that could be true for growing crops in a region ill-suited to that crop. But if you basically had a farm of the same efficiency, but an hour away instead of across the border? Obviously there would be some benefit there, even if you refuse to acknowledge it because you're  . There's no need to always go with local choices, as having an efficient global food distribution network is important for other reasons, and having a diverse diet is pretty great, too, but sometimes choosing locally-grown crops can have benefitsYou've "established" a claim that works in a very specific and limited context and then you've pretended that it's true in all contexts. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 09:38
|
|
|
You haven't really done anything to show that it's fishmech who is talking about a specific and limited context and not you. You've actually refused to give any specific example, and are instead talking about hypothetical perfectly spherical, frictionless farms in a vacuum. The notion that sometimes choosing <some action> can have some benefit is a ridiculously weak assertion. Unless you are prepared to make some concrete claim, you really should drop this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
Is there a larger argument that this monopoly definition claim is part of?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Again, you're focusing too much on a specific example, and in the process you're missing the overall point. You keep claiming that trucking in food grown in Mexico has less carbon cost than trucking food grown in the same state. Obviously that could be true for growing crops in a region ill-suited to that crop. But if you basically had a farm of the same efficiency, but an hour away instead of across the border? Obviously there would be some benefit there, even if you refuse to acknowledge it because you're Because the specific example is quite useful, my dude. Your gut instinct was that tomatoes from Oregon for someone who lives in Oregon "should" be better than tomatoes in Mexico just because its closer. The reality however is that Oregon's not a great place to grow tomatoes and thus buying "local" tomatoes there is likely to be a bad idea itself if you're concerned about carbon footprints. You're refusing to engage with the reality of buying local, which is that the factors at stake are way the gently caress more complicated than they appear at first glance. And no, dude, the claim isn't too specific or limited at all, since the "claim" aka reality is that "local" is a useless indicator as to whether buying your food from that source would lower your carbon footprint, let alone anything else such as getting truly better quality food or even being particularly good for the local economy! All of that stuff relies on a ton more factors, which is why "buy local" is a lovely guideline to have for any of those goals. The only sort of food where "local" always turns out better when it's available is highly perishable/difficult to ship items like milk and eggs. But you don't really have an option to shop "non-local" for those outside of being in very remote places or certain specialty varieties - like those brands of ultra-pasteurized milk. Straight up normal milk, even if it has a regional or national brand name on it, is near universally coming from some nearby dairy. Same deal with eggs, they're going to be from some random nearby farms. Buying regular milk or eggs that isn't "local" would tend to require you to go drive hours out of your way to buy some other place's local eggs/milk, or as mentioned live somewhere really remote like a town in the middle of Alaska where you can't really keep cows and chickens anywhere nearby.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Is there a larger argument that this monopoly definition claim is part of? Yes. Monopolies are bad so Bernie Sanders called Monsanto a monopoly. It clearly isn't so someone pointed that out but then someone was wrong and disagreed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
It was just as bad of a as this stupid argument about the context of local shipping. I'm just gonna post this here in hopes that it will keep him busy a while.quote:Carrots are a healthier food than ice cream. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It was just as bad of a Wait is there an argument that ice cream is healthier than carrots? Asking for a friend.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Wait is there an argument that ice cream is healthier than carrots? Asking for a friend. That guy got very angry when I told him there's no magic set of foods to avoid that works for everyone, and the only thing that consistently works among everyone who needs to lose weight is to eat less food, no matter what type. He's been angry about it for months now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It was just as bad of a hah. I'm allergic to beta-carotene. Checkmate, friend. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That guy got very angry when I told him there's no magic set of foods to avoid that works for everyone, and the only thing that consistently works among everyone who needs to lose weight is to eat less food, no matter what type. He's been angry about it for months now. I wish food was magic. Shame. Edit: I also think I read a meta-analysis recently that the only thing that all successful diet studies had in then was food diaries. This does not take away from the original point about calories in vs calories out, it's possibly just a methodology. WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:hah. I'm allergic to beta-carotene. Checkmate, friend. You eating carrots is still healthy for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:You haven't really done anything to show that it's fishmech who is talking about a specific and limited context and not you. You've actually refused to give any specific example, and are instead talking about hypothetical perfectly spherical, frictionless farms in a vacuum. The notion that sometimes choosing <some action> can have some benefit is a ridiculously weak assertion. Unless you are prepared to make some concrete claim, you really should drop this. Yes, it was a weak claim made as part of a passive, offhand suggestion. That's my point. Everything else has been fishmech strawmanning
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
I've lost a lot of weight by eating active E. coli colonies. It's mostly water weight though...
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yes, it was a weak claim made as part of a passive, offhand suggestion. That's my point. Everything else has been fishmech strawmanning There's no strawmanning except from you. The fact that "eat local" is a useless guideline isn't a strawman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There's no strawmanning except from you. The fact that "eat local" is a useless guideline isn't a strawman. So you admit that carrots are healthier than ice cream.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:So you admit that carrots are healthier than ice cream. Why are you even posting in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:So you admit that carrots are healthier than ice cream. Nice nonsensical statement. Slanderer posted:Why are you even posting in this thread? Because he's angry people didn't agree with his expert diet advice months ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Why are you even posting in this thread? Because "just post". Why you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Because "just post". Why you? You can't even troll fishmech without accidentally pantsing yourself in front of the class. I get that you are bitter that years ago the smartest kid in America owned you or something, but maybe if you're going to be a pathetic weirdo you shouldn't post in my thread. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:You can't even troll fishmech without accidentally pantsing yourself in front of the class. I get that you are bitter that years ago the smartest kid in America owned you or something, but maybe if you're going to be a pathetic weirdo you shouldn't post in my thread. I'm not bitter. I just get bored reading pages of pedantic nonsense.  Grats on having posted this thread three years ago, I genuinely don't care.
Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I'm not bitter. I just get bored reading pages of pedantic nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
twodot posted:And your solution to pages of pedantic nonsense is to be aggressively incorrect about whether "healthy" is an objective intrinsic quality of individual food items? This seems like bad strategy. It seems like most people understand a basic usage of the word "healthy" in context. In fact, they've even done a study where the word is used and everyone seems to know what it means. It really just serves as an example to people how insane you are willing to get to quibble about nonsense. You probably should get your own emoji. Edit- tag fails study here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...agree.html?_r=0
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
NOOO  That thing is like a paean to everything wrong with survey design at once. Why are you linking it?! I'd pushed it out of my memory!
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There's no strawmanning except from you. The fact that "eat local" is a useless guideline isn't a strawman. Yes, I agree that "eat local" on its own is not a useful guideline to live your life by, you illiterate hobgoblin. It's the rest of your posts' content that I refer to as a series of strawmans
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yes, I agree that "eat local" on its own is not a useful guideline to live your life by, you illiterate hobgoblin. It's the rest of your posts' content that I refer to as a series of strawmans You only agree now after it was pointed out in multiple ways by multiple people how "Eat local" falls on its face. Perhaps you just have bad memory. Here's your original post on the subject: QuarkJets posted:We used to have one of those vegetable delivery services, and they had two plans to choose from: local or organic. The local providers are all small farms, they just don't qualify for the organic label for whatever reason. The organic box is mostly poo poo being shipped in from California, I guess for the yuppies who care more about organic ideological purity than supporting small farms or reducing fossil fuel usage This is you saying: 1) Choosing local supports small farms 2) Choosing local reduces fossil fuel usage Neither is true. Both are you saying eating local is inherently the better choice. If that's not what you meant, then consider why you're so bad at conveying your real beliefs. fishmech fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Sep 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
I'm going to reiterate that this discussion seems to be circling the drain until you two can come up with numbers that measure a quality property you both agree with. What's, I don't know, the carbon footprint of growing tomatoes in Mexico and getting them to market in Portland vs. that of growing them on the opposite side of the state in a small farm?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
Haha, silence. Fantastic. Monsanto Agrees to Use Gene-Editing Tool CRISPR Responsibly The author's not exactly, uh, neutral.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Haha, silence. Fantastic. quote:Yet the ease with which researchers and companies like Monsanto could use gene-editing technology to irreversibly gently caress with living things 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 23:00
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Discendo Vox posted:Haha, silence. Fantastic. It's very strange how it starts out factual, then transitions into a diatribe, without skipping a beat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Yeah he had me right up until he dropped the f-bomb out of nowhere. It's like a completely different person started typing mid-sentence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Nassim Taleb trying to answer the question of just how many fields he can be wrong about in a single essay: https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#.b43jy4ix4
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Taleb gave the plenary talk for the American Society for Bioethics and the Humanities in 2012. ASBH is the primary bioethics org. That's how bad things are in bioethics as a field.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
I am a complexity researcher and my brain is bleeding and I haven't even read 5 sentences. Edit: metaphorically. I'm fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
And to think that I actually pre-ordered Antifragile... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:And to think that I actually pre-ordered Antifragile... Quoting to toss in next time we're arguing about something😉 Edit: mein gott, emoji work?! This is a game changer~🍔
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Quoting to toss in next time we're arguing about something😉 Pretty sure I already admitted as much either in this thread or somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 03:03
|
|