www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
it's possible to live without eating fish, but it's not possible for a fish to live when it's being caught to be eaten
Your point is...?
that people can live without killing fish
"peculiar diet" you could also use the phrase "more healthy diet"
It is peculiar in our culture to avoid eating meat.
it is also peculiar to not be overweight, and peculiar to not be in debt...
do you want to simply do what the majority do, and assume it is best?
make your own decisions, don't go with the crowd...
because most of them are simply going with the crowd
It's also immoral to demand that others blindly follow your lead and cater to your aesthetic sensitivities.
i'm not demanding at all...
everywhere i'm only sharing information,
and cause&effect relationships,
and my feelings
people make their own choices...
if someone wants to read the the most
respected nutrition groups say plant diets are healthy,
and choose to change how they eat.... that is their choice
Surely it's a good thing to make information available to people so they can
make their own choices.
there are a lot of benefits, so let the info be shared and let people make their own decisions, because some people actually will want to change their diets.
For those who don't, there is no hamr done.... same as if you read about the benefits of exercise and choose not to exercise
when i say that fishing can be done sustainably, and it's also has low requirements for energy and resource use... should know i'm not one-sided
trees wouldn't be deforested at the rates they are naturally,
Hey, Einstein, ever hear of forest fires?
there are managed fires that help to burn away deadwood to prevent them.
I would believe you'd think that we should protect the forests and sustain them.... and that it wouldn't be okay to either let them be burned by fires and decrease, or be deforested and decrease.
ground water would not be depleted,
Ground water has been an issue for thousands of years. In fact, in many places it's still unwise to drink the groundwater. It's only in the last century, with water treatment and distribution, that groundwater is safe to drink.
please read the info... the info is on it being depleted
soil wouldn't be eroded at the same rate,
Evidence for this?
areas with vegetation hold the dirt together and break the impact of rainfall. farmland has a lot of exposed dirt and it can be carrried away by rainfall. the wet dirt then dries into a hardened crust which reduces future rainwater from being soaked and increases run-off, and the force of the runoff carried away bits of the dirt . this is very common in ecology and any related fields here's one from the US Air Force http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/dc/dcd/land/ldg/s18ErosionControl/c02Causes.html
air wouldn't be building up CO2
Stop exhaling if you're worried about CO2. Change starts at home. ;-)
lol
Again, nature is in constant flux. You're relying on information that shows SOME change, but not all of it. Your sources also apparently neglected to tell you that CO2 emissions from volcanoes exceeds industrial CO2 emissions megafold.
any sources for this?
http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/Emissions/vgas_fsheet.html http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/of97-262/of97-262.html
consider this.. if there are some factors makes things less sustainable that we can control, and others that we can't.... do we want to do anything about the things we can control?
do we want to reduce deforestation, even though there will continue to be forest fires?
it's about the end goal we
want, not about if we are at blame.
If there are places like Tuvalu that
are evactuated because risiing water levels have flooded their land,
situation isn't any different if it was caused in part by the CO2 release of decomposing vegetative material or volcones... it's not about blame, it's about what we want the future to be
Negligibly. It's wise to remove surface oil, but currents and water cycles are a larger factor in dissipating pollution.
is there any scientific support that clean-up efforts on oil spills does little good?
Who said it was? The point is: nature is more resilient than the naysayers and doomsdayers suggest.
i see what you are saying, but there are distinctions....an analogy would be
if there was an oil spill in that sound every year or few years, then would
it recover?
deforestation, and air pollution, and soil erosion, and ground water depletion, just a few are things that happen continuously, and not just once like the oil spill ...they don't have time to naturally repair the damage
Okay, fine. We were told following the horrible fires at Yellowstone that the park would take decades to rebound. Guess what?
Ten years after the blazes, Yellowstone continues to rebound. "Mother nature is taking care of herself pretty well," ecologist Jay Anderson of Idaho State University told Science magazine... Fish and mammals survived the holocaust surprisingly well, and annual weeds covered most of the charred areas the next year. Today, lodgepole pines -- which dominated the park for 10,000 years -- are poking through the shrubs and weeds, indicating a return of the park's old ecosystem.
http://whyfiles.org/018forest_fire/main2.html (University of Wisconsin site)
The reason so much of Yellowstone burned is because of the density of the forests. Effective forest management accepts that removal of trees in an area helps reduce the severity of, if not the chance of, forest fire damage. Thus, logging can be beneficial to any given area. The deleterious consequences of logging are outweighed by the indiscriminate damage of forest fires.
BTW, do we have more or fewer trees and forests in the US today than we had 200 years ago?
Conservation of trees in the US will cause more trees to be deforested
elsewhere.
CO2 and air quality is a global issue.
the solution is to
reduce the amount of trees cut,
not to simple take them from someone else's backyark, and that will ultimately affect our global climate the same way.
Some logging can be beneficial yes, but consider the reduction in
forests....
obviously there is much more happening that acting to preserve forests
No, it's forcing people to eat what you deem appropriate. Are we to be prisoners of your other fucked up values? After all, we're bombarded with health and nutritional information as it is; we also have plenty of "healthier foods" from which people can choose. Guess what, Sherlock, people are choosing what they want to eat.
making food available doesn't force anyone to eat it. am i, or you, or anyone, forced to eat every single food that is available because it is available??
i agree, people make their own choices... obviously, what else? obviously some people choose to eat as you do, and other choose to eat as i do, and the choice should be there's, there is no forcing being done.
A question... would we want for the most credible nutritional advice to be available to people, or not?
Would we want information of how animals live be available?
What effects changes would have on workers? What effects changes would have on our resources? i say make as much 'credible' information as available as possible, so people can make informed choices. Information is not a threat, because only you choose what you will choose, so there is no threat.
BTW, many animals die regardless of your diet.
it's information
Disinformation in many instances. Contrary to your previous thought, animals are **REQUIRED** to be killed for your diet. Health departments require extermination of various pests where foods are grown, processed, stored, and sold. That doesn't even take into account the number of small, furry creatures maimed and killed in the fields and orchards whre your food is grown.
you have a lot of prejudgements about me without seeing if they are accurate...
okay, say it is... the important question, rather than the label, is is it 'better' to have accurate advise on exercise available to people, or would it be better to not have it available?
soy milk sales have been *growing* at over 20% a year http://www.newhope.com/nfm-online/nfm_backs/apr_02/soy.cfm
So? Meat sales continue to increase as well.
i was replying to what you said about people not changing their diets...
in 2001 there was more than $1.8 billion in soyfood sales http://www.spins.com/natural/soytrends.pdf
So? The more soy that's grown, stored, processed, and sold, the more animals suffer and die for your food.
yes and no. yes, animals die, and people too.. don't forget about the thousands that die of CO2 pollution every year... from all sources of buring fossil fuels...
..the vast vast majority of animals killed for food cause more CDs than soy does so eating soy instead of the vast majority of meat will cause less animals to be killed.
That's still Peta's goal. They want McD's and KFC to stop selling animal products altogether.
obviously
..compromise and small steps are good to use
Incrementalism is a shady tactic employed under the acceptance that the whole is considered more radical than some of its parts. If Peta and other groups were honest with the public, they'd be even further marginalized than they already are.
it was incrementalism that got blacks the rights they have today,
and women too, and have lowered the acceptance of child abuse
if you tried to get the gov't to end all wasted tax money, or to end end a few wasted tax money projects... which would have a better probability of being successful? which would be the more pragmatic thing to do?
So what? Fish die daily. They fucking eat each other, too. That's part of the cycle, and part of the food chain. Why are you opposed to man's role in the foodchain?
man does not follow the food chain.
some humans breed animals into existance, cut off from natural predators, and kill them.
the natural food chain helps to regulate populations... some humans have increased the population of certain animals to well beyond what the resources could naturally handle...
people die, and kill each other, daily also, but that might not mean it's okay to kill another person
i don't see any reason to assume that the ways things are right now, is perfect, and that change will only cause suffering..... things have to change in order to get better.
even if 2 million people decided to only eat plant foods, why would you care... you can still choose to eat whatever you want to
Bullshit, bong boy. How did Enron sabotage anything other than their credibility? How do fishermen sabotage the source of their livelihood?
you don't know what enron did then
simply they did something that would
likely end their business if it was found out
fishermen....
the fish declines
...regardless, some fish populations are being reduced and in danger, so obviously some fishing groups are doing this
Logical fallacies of arguing from ignorance AND false dilemma. Some species hang in peril for reasons not having to do with man, including a change in the number of predators in the ecosystem.
more importantly is that it's commonly accepted by those who have looked at fish population that the reductions are caused majorily by overfishing
there are forest fires, but deforestation is what we choose to do or not do
there are natural fluctuations in fish populations, but overfishing is what we choose to do or not do
there's little point, other than to understand the situation, to focus on what we have no control over... focus on what we do have control over serentiy prayer
False syllogism, retard. It's against the law to willfully slaughter men outside of war and self-defense.
and if it were legal to slaughter people?
again, are things 'good' or 'bad' because a law says so? or were laws created by fallible humans to approximate what is 'good' and 'bad'? 'the law' is a collection of opinions by other people
What do you do for a living?
i invest, trade stocks
Sure you do. Where did you make your money?
i trade stocks using classical technical analysis, mostly using trendlines and moving averages i use normal charts, simple moving averages and mostly trade short-term or mid-term by pattern. i'm best with head and shoulders patterns, and triangles, but can trade wedges and other patterns too. i use the SPX as guidance since that's what the majority of big money watches, even though the Dow is used a lot in the mainstream, and i only trade nasdaq stocks because of their ECN fairness, and only stocks with good liquidity
give me any stock and i'll show you the technical picture, i love charting
You're fucking illiterate. Certain stock indices have dropped. The markets started losing ground in 1999. Do you know what started the NASDAQ on its skid? Try the bogus lawsuit against Microsoft. The high for that index was established the day before the lawsuit. That lawsuit precipitated the tech slide.
the Dow topped in '00 http://tinyurl.com/msbv the S&P topped in '00 http://tinyurl.com/mscb nasdaq topped in '00 http://tinyurl.com/msck (i think i used the wrong url for the last 2 but they are easy enough for you to check if you want to)
no.. to MSFT causing the 30% drop in the US markets.
MSFT is 10% of the QQQ
(top 100 nasdaq's)
so of course they are going to have similar timing...
same with the other top weighters... and CSCO and INTC have an even more similar chart in terms of timing
look at the big picture, and this is without ANY fundamentals of the insane earnings... people are only going to be buying computers until the markets are saturated, and then what happens to earning?
and earnings reports can only be manipulated for so long until the first one is found by the public and the bubble bursts
their earnings are very low, many companies have gone BK bankrupt,
Some companies are also doing quite well even in a sluggish economy. BTW, idiot, we're not in a recession. We have economic GROWTH, it's just been anemic in the aggregate. A lot of that is still fall out from the tech bubble of the 1990s. Economic reality is a bitch when the smoke and mirrors is cleared, huh.
how do we have growth when earnings are dropping??
Bullshit. There are a few factors for the slow economy. First, Europe and other economies had been depressed for some time. Second, we had "irrational exhuberance," particularly in the the tech sector, throughout the 1990s. Third, the former administration targeted a tech company, causing investors to reconsider valuation in "the new economy;" this resulted in the sell-off, particularly of NASDAQ issues (the DOW, NYSE, and other indices were much less affected). Fourth, we got a new business-friendly administration and the markets rose a little. Fifth, we were attacked by terrorists on 11 September 2001; such devastating events often translate into sell-offs because of uncertainties. The markets rebounded a little, but then we went to war in Iraq.
http://tinyurl.com/msdq is why the market have rose a little.... you hit a support line that major, and it's going to almost surely bump a lot and not break right thru
againand now the goose is in very bad health and it will be a while before the economy will be strong
I guess you don't read the paper much. Or at least you haven't in the past 24 hours:
lol and reading the papers would have helped a lot to invest by them.
just as brokers were found guilty of lying to their clients, there are financial ties between the market players and the media, especially WSJ and the others
The global economy is improving with US companies poised to resume capital investment, a crucial component in lifting world growth, the world's top central bankers said at a meeting in Basle.
The Group of 10 central bankers cited encouraging second quarter results from the US as well as growing business and consumer confidence. http://tinyurl.com/mpnt
You're a chicken little when it comes to the environment, so I'm not surprised by your alarmist attitude when it comes to the economy. Good luck with your "investments." Most of us see low stock prices as an *opportunity*. It's the euphoria of the 1990s that's off-putting: what goes up will usually come down. Maybe you should find a real job if the pressures and data are over your head. Hehe.
sure, they were a good buy when they were down, 5%, and an even better buy when they were down 10%, and 15%, and 20% and 25% and 30% avergaing down on a fall is not the way to make money.... you wait for a solid breakout in an upward direction pick bottoms in a stable market, not in a falling market
beNo, both sides play the same freaking game.
yes, and only 1 side wins.
That happens in sports. BFD.
when one side tried to get the legal drinking limit for driving lowered, the resturant and bar groups were protesting... sometimes one "side" is actually doing something that willhelpful
According to whom? Alcohol-related deaths are *increasing* despite tougher laws.
yes, so you agree that lowering the limit would be good? that is what i
am saying...
there are too many deaths, so the limit should be lowered, and the side profiting from alcohol sales was resisteing the change.... thus it's not simply letting both sides have their say... sometimes one of choices is better than the other
okay, this has gotten into me sharing info and me being nit-picked and being asked "so what" when i answer questions i've been called names more than a few times, the F word's been used on me, so this has left the territory of an exchnage on info and opinions
best to you keep choosing what you decide to, and please allow other to choose what they decide to, even if it's not what you choose yourself.
some people want to eat meat, other people don't
and no animals want to be killed
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
