CapeWearingAeroplane @ CapeWearingAeroplane @sopuli.xyz

Posts

0

Comments

265

Joined

2 yr. ago

Take a look at a map of Norway. If you find a way of growing crops on rocks that are dozens of kilometres from the nearest road, and covered in snow 8/12 months a year, please let me know.

I'm not bringing up the state of access to agricultural land as some historical trivia. It's just as true today as ever before.

The point is that plenty of countries/regions cannot be self-sufficient regarding food production without resorting to livestock. There are several reasons to be, at least in part, self-sufficient. From environmental considerations arising from the transport of food from other places, to food security in the case that conflict or crisis strikes the region supplying you with food, a region which you don't control.

Stop acting like this is black and white, and that there's absolutely no reason a country would want the capability of providing for its own people, as if that's a thing of the past.

Which is why I said "in general, you're right". However, that doesn't take away the fact that most livestock from some countries is primarily raised on land that can't be farmed.

Speaking of supply chains: We could do the math on whether shipping a vegetable-based calorie from Brazil to Norway is more or less of an environmental burden than a meat-based calorie produced in Norway.

I'm just assuming that you are, in fact, aware that the likely primary advantage of inventing cooking was that the food is partially broken down before we consume it, meaning we need much less time and energy digesting it, which leaves us with more time to do other things, which is a huge evolutionary advantage. Right? Of course, every child knows that most animals spend a significant amount of time just digesting food, far more than humans.

Well, since you're clearly a well educated person that knows these things, I can't find any other reasoning behind what you posted here than that you're arguing in bad faith, or trolling. Please either read a book or stop trolling. In any case, don't post about shit you know nothing about.

While in general you're right, you're neglecting the fact that theres plenty of land that is suitable for raising animals which isn't suitable for farming. Specifically: The Norwegian population would have been incapable of surviving historically without a bunch livestock living in the un-farmable mountains most of the year.

I guess its just because saying "one-seventy-nine" rolls better off the tongue than "one point seventy nine" or "one point eight"

Look: We are loads of people that agree that more can be done. Don't use that as an argument to say that this isn't good. He's doing good things, and if we keep voting in candidates that are more progressive than the previous candidate, we'll see progress. Biden is better than trump, next time let's get someone better than Biden.

I agree that genocide is horrendous, but you seem to be missing the fact that your alternatives are voting for the candidate that has publicly pressured Israel to stop, and withheld weapons, or voting for the candidate that wants to arrest and deport people that oppose the genocide, and has actively urged it on.

Not voting means you don't care who wins: The candidate trying, at least somewhat, to reduce the scale of the genocide, or the candidate urging for it to increase in scale.

In that case, you are complicit if the latter wins, and the genocide gets worse.

I've never thought of myself as a conspiracy theorist, but if jar-jar being planned to be the actual phantom menace, but later being taken out of the role because fans hated him counts as a conspiracy theory: Count me in! I think the arguments are compelling to say the least.

I've found chatgpt reasonably good for one thing: Generating regex-patterns. I don't know regex for shit, but if I ask for a pattern described with words, I get a working pattern 9/10 times. It's also a very easy use-case to double check.

I definitely roll with "badass tiny mf", "chill little dude", "tiny gangsta bro" or any other title making fun of my stature. Call me anything involving "king" and I'll be inclined to convince you that, even though I'm short, you'll be shorter once you're confined to a wheelchair

I was thinking something similar: If you have the computer write in a formal language, designed in such a way that it is impossible to make an incorrect statement, I guess it could be possible to get somewhere with this

We tried the "trade your skills for something you need". In every surviving society it eventually lead to the development of a currency (not hard to see why), which requires/leads to regulation, which requires enforcement, aaaand you're back at a modern society. I'm all for more regulation to reduce economic and social differences in society, but the people that are talking about abolishing governments and currencies need to pick up a history book and follow their ideas to their natural conclusion.

"Controlling speech" is a hallmark of authoritarian governments, be they far-left or far-right, there are plenty of historical examples of both.

I never said the current system is great: But given the choice between driving off a cliff and veering into a tree, your response seems to be to not tough the wheel and letting whatever happens happen.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that someone will win the upcoming election. By not voting, you're leaving it up to everyone else to choose.

By all means: Something needs to be done to fix the broken system, but saying that we should have pumped the brakes long ago, and then doing nothing about the most immediate issue - who the next president will be - doesn't help. We need to ensure that we get some president that doesn't persecute political opponents if we want to have the option of electing an actually good president in the future.

By all means: Start or join a movement to get better candidates in the future, vote for other candidates in local elections and primaries to lift them up. The fight you're talking about has to be fought long before the final two candidates are locked into the ballot, and complaining that it's lost won't effect who wins in the end.

And your solution to the problem is literally not vote, which is doing exactly nothing. I have a really hard time seeing how you can expect yourself actively not influencing the system to somehow influence the system.

Your suggestion to fix this failure of a system is literally "do nothing". Please try to recognise that: You are advocating for fighting the status quo by doing nothing.

It will not work. If you want change you need to take action. Not voting is the exact opposite of attempting to change things. Use the influence you have to push for a change in the right direction.

I mean, in a perfect world, yes. The issue comes up when someone wears out or breaks the drill, and it needs to be replaced or repaired. Whoever spends time and resources ensuring that we have a drill needs to be compensated somehow, because that's time they're not spending on making sure they have food and shelter.

Follow along that line of reasoning for a couple steps, and you end up with some kind of economic system, and likely some kind of enforcement system, so you're suddenly back at an early stage proto-state/government.

But it might be beer!

When did he get steamrolled? When he ensured that corrupt people were sentenced by a court before being jailed, or when he applied to join the famously pro-fascist EU?

I actually hadn't realised that yet, thanks for pointing it out, I thought I was going crazy with the amount of people suddenly supporting Russian invaders