Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
@xm(z Kwark is talking about factory farming of animal products versus free range ethical animal husbandry kind of thing. I think your talking about organic versus conventional farming of plant products based on what you shared. If you have any evidence that free range animal raising can meet the demands of a country like the US without deleting the remainder of the amazon rainforest I’m interested, but I’m not sure that it is within the laws of energy.
Ok you replied while I was typing, 600 is nothing. These facilities can have 40,000 plus hens.
In general eating meat is never going to be efficient, unless your living in the arctic or something and fish and migratory animals provide most of your food. Growing grains to feed the animals to eat the animals is just not a great method. Idk Im one of those crazy vegetarians though so just ignore me please :D.
is this dude "Karl Hammer of Vermont Compost has been feeding hundreds, sometimes thousands of chickens without grain for 20 years." https://www.vermontcompost.com
the whole point here, as mentioned earlier is to get more people involved, so instead of having 1 with 40.000 heads, we need to get 67 people raising 600 heads each.
On June 12 2019 05:50 xM(Z wrote: is this dude "Karl Hammer of Vermont Compost has been feeding hundreds, sometimes thousands of chickens without grain for 20 years." https://www.vermontcompost.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99QeAS57-do the whole point here, as mentioned earlier is to get more people involved, so instead of having 1 with 40.000 heads, we need to get 67 people raising 600 heads each.
I see dozens of chickens. Cant imagine the literal mount Everest needed to sustain tens of thousands of chickens to replace even 1 'factory'.
the problem with 67 people raising 600 heads is that you paying an extra 66 people and the price of your egg just went completely through the roof.
Very bad poll numbers out for Trump today. Maybe he only won in 2016 because his opponent was historically bad/subject to FBI criminal investigations/getting her hacked correspondence revealed in mainstream news daily. And now, the country would be glad to have a replacement for him.
On June 12 2019 05:45 BlueBird. wrote: @xm(z Kwark is talking about factory farming of animal products versus free range ethical animal husbandry kind of thing. I think your talking about organic versus conventional farming of plant products based on what you shared. If you have any evidence that free range animal raising can meet the demands of a country like the US without deleting the remainder of the amazon rainforest I’m interested, but I’m not sure that it is within the laws of energy.
Ok you replied while I was typing, 600 is nothing. These facilities can have 40,000 plus hens.
In general eating meat is never going to be efficient, unless your living in the arctic or something and fish and migratory animals provide most of your food. Growing grains to feed the animals to eat the animals is just not a great method. Idk Im one of those crazy vegetarians though so just ignore me please :D.
Nono, you're doing it wrong! Stratos_speAr said "Vegans often explicitly say "you're a bad person" to others." not "Humans can be wonderful or shitty because they're independent humans, and someone having a strong ethical viewpoint on something doesn't automatically make them hostile and aggressive about it."
The idea that vegans as a collective unit emit a "holier-than-thou" attitude is ridiculous. I have met several vegetarians / vegans who are silently so, but very happy to talk about it if the conversation comes up naturally. I have never met one of the clicheed power-vegans who asserts that they are a superior human to all around them. Even if I had met one or more of them, it is safe to assume based on the number of people I talk to that the angry vegans would still not be in the majority.
It is a stereotype that I understand as a core idea (because it is rooted in the insecurity of the non-vegans) but has never been a fair assessment.
On June 12 2019 10:31 Doodsmack wrote: Very bad poll numbers out for Trump today. Maybe he only won in 2016 because his opponent was historically bad/subject to FBI criminal investigations/getting her hacked correspondence revealed in mainstream news daily. And now, the country would be glad to have a replacement for him.
Didn't help the FBI director made an announcement that made it sound like Clinton was still under investigation because of new evidence just days before the vote. Which did have a notable shift on the polling numbers even before the exit polls.
On June 12 2019 05:45 BlueBird. wrote: @xm(z Kwark is talking about factory farming of animal products versus free range ethical animal husbandry kind of thing. I think your talking about organic versus conventional farming of plant products based on what you shared. If you have any evidence that free range animal raising can meet the demands of a country like the US without deleting the remainder of the amazon rainforest I’m interested, but I’m not sure that it is within the laws of energy.
Ok you replied while I was typing, 600 is nothing. These facilities can have 40,000 plus hens.
In general eating meat is never going to be efficient, unless your living in the arctic or something and fish and migratory animals provide most of your food. Growing grains to feed the animals to eat the animals is just not a great method. Idk Im one of those crazy vegetarians though so just ignore me please :D.
Nono, you're doing it wrong! Stratos_speAr said "Vegans often explicitly say "you're a bad person" to others." not "Humans can be wonderful or shitty because they're independent humans, and someone having a strong ethical viewpoint on something doesn't automatically make them hostile and aggressive about it."
The idea that vegans as a collective unit emit a "holier-than-thou" attitude is ridiculous. I have met several vegetarians / vegans who are silently so, but very happy to talk about it if the conversation comes up naturally. I have never met one of the clicheed power-vegans who asserts that they are a superior human to all around them. Even if I had met one or more of them, it is safe to assume based on the number of people I talk to that the angry vegans would still not be in the majority.
It is a stereotype that I understand as a core idea (because it is rooted in the insecurity of the non-vegans) but has never been a fair assessment.
Having met several vegans that do not fit the stereotype is no proof that the stereotype doesn’t exist or isn’t fair. I think even the truth of the stereotype itself has worked to convert more vegans into less preachy moralizers. That’s almost a positive good of stereotypes.
On June 12 2019 05:50 xM(Z wrote: is this dude "Karl Hammer of Vermont Compost has been feeding hundreds, sometimes thousands of chickens without grain for 20 years." https://www.vermontcompost.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99QeAS57-do the whole point here, as mentioned earlier is to get more people involved, so instead of having 1 with 40.000 heads, we need to get 67 people raising 600 heads each.
I see dozens of chickens. Cant imagine the literal mount Everest needed to sustain tens of thousands of chickens to replace even 1 'factory'.
the problem with 67 people raising 600 heads is that you paying an extra 66 people and the price of your egg just went completely through the roof.
what?, who's that you that pays that dude in the video?; rethorical, no one pays him and no one will pay those other 66 too. that is one of the models, you replicate it to infinity and get the same result: profitability and competitivity. or if you like seeing it this way: customers will pay those 66 just as they pay that one in the vid. there's no 'extra' added anywhere because there's no boyar that needs to rule them all. (besides, there are other models being tested: chickens grown on black fly larvae while in a system with other production outputs on the same acre, as one example)
It is a stereotype that I understand as a core idea (because it is rooted in the insecurity of the non-vegans) but has never been a fair assessment.
I was with you until you dropped this. Saying that non-vegans are insecure about food choices is a severe mischaracterisation. I choose to eat meat, but I look at where it comes from, not the price, similar to what Drone said a few pages back. My red meat consumption is in the range of 4-5 times per month, and I eat vegan salads most nights. For me it's all about consuming a balanced and sustainable diet and making sure the welfare of the animals is taken into account, I.e. if I'm buying chicken I'll go for the organic farm where the poor things actually get to run around outside. This has nothing to do with insecurity nor self-discipline.
I do get annoyed at vocal vegans. A specific example is going out and having lamb at a restaurant and having my vegan friend showing me pictures of baby lambs and calling me a horrible person for eating that. It wasn't enjoyable for anyone on the table and we weren't discussing animal welfare before that point.
On June 12 2019 05:50 xM(Z wrote: is this dude "Karl Hammer of Vermont Compost has been feeding hundreds, sometimes thousands of chickens without grain for 20 years." https://www.vermontcompost.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99QeAS57-do the whole point here, as mentioned earlier is to get more people involved, so instead of having 1 with 40.000 heads, we need to get 67 people raising 600 heads each.
I see dozens of chickens. Cant imagine the literal mount Everest needed to sustain tens of thousands of chickens to replace even 1 'factory'.
the problem with 67 people raising 600 heads is that you paying an extra 66 people and the price of your egg just went completely through the roof.
what?, who's that you that pays that dude in the video?; rethorical, no one pays him and no one will pay those other 66 too. that is one of the models, you replicate it to infinity and get the same result: profitability and competitivity. or if you like seeing it this way: customers will pay those 66 just as they pay that one in the vid. there's no 'extra' added anywhere because there's no boyar that needs to rule them all. (besides, there are other models being tested: chickens grown on black fly larvae while in a system with other production outputs on the same acre, as one example)
If one person is responsible for 40000 chicken, and sells their eggs, each egg only needs to pay for 1/40000 of the persons daily living costs after expenses. (assuming one egg/year)
If one person has 600 chickens, and that is their job, each egg needs to pay for 1/600 of the chickenherders living costs. This is more than 1/40000 by a factor of 67, and thus the eggs will be a lot more expensive. Even if everything else is a lot cheaper, those work costs still factor in majorly.
So the amount of people working on something does impact the price, even if there is no larger authority employing them.
On June 12 2019 10:31 Doodsmack wrote: Very bad poll numbers out for Trump today. Maybe he only won in 2016 because his opponent was historically bad/subject to FBI criminal investigations/getting her hacked correspondence revealed in mainstream news daily. And now, the country would be glad to have a replacement for him.
Is this nationally? And with the electoral college do these numbers mean enough of a spread that Trump doesn't win.
I ask because from my limited understanding it is almost a guarantee that win or lose Trump won't get the popular vote. So how far down does it have to fall for him to lose the election? Like can he win 40% of the popular vote and win.
And I don't mean only theoretically, I mean in realistic projections how low can the popular vote go and he still win?
Realistically, anything bellow 5% is almost impossible to win. Trump lost by around 3% and he JUST squeaked out a win because of the EC. I don't think its possible with any less tan that
On June 13 2019 00:03 JimmiC wrote: Good to know, I also was happy to see that the Amrs sale to SA is going to be blocked in the Senate. Now that is not to say that it wont happen eventually but that the senate doesn't agree with Trump not taking the decision through its usual checks and balances.
EPT
