Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

canuckistani

Members
  • Posts

    2,769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by canuckistani

  1. Doesn't change the fact that indian or chinese people themselves are less polluting than you or I on a person to person basis. As a person, that makes us worse polluters than them.
  2. North America has far greater lifetime plastic pollution quantity than Asia or any other corner of the planet. North Americans are by far amongst the worst polluters individually on the planet.
  3. Just like you caring about the global climate change, when you really just care about living in a pretty dollhouse and shoving your extra dirty lifestyle under the carpet. The data has been posted many, many times. Canadians are in the top 5% of the dirtiest people on the planet for the world. You are one of them. If you shop in Canada, buy food, clothing, articles, etc. in Canada, you are in the top 5% of the polluters on the planet. You don't even have to have a car.Can't escape emissions numbers and facts. someone is a bit butthurt by the truth and being called out for being a hypocrite, dirty boy. Come back to me about science when you can stop running away from questions posed to you in the past regarding science.
  4. I am one, which is why i can expose you and your ilk as hypocrites when it comes to pollution, dirty boy. Range of data and error range of a given control group. Look that up. You are dirtier for the planet than 90% of the people. You can't hide from facts, champ.
  5. False. its pure data and science. You cannot have a lower pollution quotient than a person from Sentinel Island. That is a scientific fact. Rest is just more data at our disposal. Trying to hide your shame won't work, when you are being a hypocrite.
  6. Yes, you have. False. Each and every person in Canada is a bigger polluter than the average of Uganda. That is a statistical fact. I know enough science to call out the hypocrites like you who are worse hypocrites than rest of the planet. Anonymity is not going to save you from the fact that living in Surrey makes you a top 10% polluter on the planet, period.
  7. No, what he is suggesting is that people like you, who import goods from long distance away instead of having local industry, because its locally 'dirty' are worse for the planet's health than people who are willing to have industry in their own back yard and spew more carbon closer to home. People like you are the worst kind of hypocrites for this reason.
  8. There is nothing conjecture about the fact that you, the average Canadian, is in top 10% of the polluters on the planet. This is scientifically verifiable fact. And yes, you have shared snippets of your lifestyle that shows you do drive a car, buy long distance trucked goods, etc. that make you a worse polluter than rest of the planet.
  9. There is nothing nonsense about the fact that you are one of the worst polluters on the planet, in the worst 5-10% of humanity.
  10. Or you can move to a more transit friendly & oil un-friendly country if thats what you are looking for too. Simple solution.
  11. So because there are more Indians and Chinese on the planet than Canadians, Canadians get to pollute 50x as them and call it fair. Nothing more than elitism of the fringe minority. If climate change is a global problem, then Canada has to do its part or STFU about them who are doing better than the average Canadian in terms of emissions. Canada - the hypocrite Mary Antoinette of climate change. Virtue signalling but doing far less than most of the world in emissions.
  12. Alberta is not your highschool gf you can break up with and forget, if you are BC. Alberta is your fellow sibling, who like you is a minor and you must listen to the mummy and daddy of the family, which is the federal govt. BC is a non-entity when compared to Canada, so is Ontario, Quebec and all the other provinces. We need a political platform to make Russia style counties, a superior form of central governorship in model.
  13. Nonsense. If Vegan objection to the meat industry was about mistreatment of animals in a bulk handling process, vegans would eat ethically raised meat. They'd hunt their own meat or kill their own fish at the very minimum. They don't. Because they believe that there is no such thing as ethical when it comes to killing only animals for food, when it is part of nature and it is in our own nature to do so. Our bodies are evolved to eat meat. Denying so, for mickey-mouse ideological beleifs does make it a religion. A religion of delusion because delusions are defined as consistent & persistent beleif in something that is in conflict with empirical facts. Empirical facts are we are meant to eat meat, which is why we digest it so bloody well. We digest most meat better than most vegetables. To say that what we are, is morally wrong in our basis, is nothing more than delusionary nonsense. Their compassion and empathy angle is just a cover to spread their delusions to rest of mankind like crusading a new religious ideology ( that eating meat is ethically wrong). It is the banner of moral superiority that is used to spread their delusion and try to change humanity to what they think it should be. Vegans need to accept their bodies for what they are - omnivorous machines and a decisive evolutionary advantage in being so.
  14. Principle of skepticism overrides principle of charity in a scientific discussion. Don't confuse your amiguity of trying to rationalize biassed feelings, which have been proven faulty in scientific premise, as reasoning. Nothing about your position is reasoned and you are missing half the picture because of your lack of understanding of what it means when someone says signal processing theory confirms plant sentience. You inserted your feelings there, not analysis of what it means.
  15. Sophistry. Statistical anomalies are often termed as accidental oddities. Sounds like you are too wrapped up in the word 'only' - i hope you never use it then, because outside of physics research paper, almost all use of the word 'only' is statistical falsehood, too. Indeed. For various reasons as said. First off, in many languages, the term IS male and female competition. For second, female sports is a protected sports, just like paralympics. Feelings do not determine eligibility in protected sports. Sure. and that is fine. Sometimes certain people have to be excluded for fairness purposes. Inclusivity cannot be the cover for unfair advantages. Nope, it would be like preventing the population of Hong Kong to join a category of sports where they have a decisive unfair advantage and end up shafting the rest of 3.5 billion female sportsperson for it.
  16. It isn't a load of bunkum when 99.9% of the population is XX and XY. Accidental oddities happen when we have genetics concerned,you should've known that. Saying XX and XY are bunkum because 0.1% of the population ( and i am being generous here) is something else, is like saying having ten fingers is a load of bunkum because 1 in 10,000 babies are born with 11 or 12 fingers.
  17. The logic has to pass the test of mathematical consistency or it is invalid as logic. For a so-called waxing philosopher about morality, you should've known this. If i can prove your argument to be mathematically absurd, it by default, fails the logic test. So show us a scientific example where the presence of an item is irrelevant to the quantity present. One demonstration would be sufficient. False.There are plenty of places in the world where precipitation happens for too brief a period for any wetness on the ground. The tropic rainforests are one such example. Try again. Not true. Travel more and you will see there can be rain enough that the ground isn't wet, there can be rain enough that doesn't reach the ground. I asked you for a scientific axiom where presence is required but quantity is irrelevant. supply me one or accept that your position is scientifically invalid. The point is missed by you, who is dancing around his dogma of discrimination of certain life-forms over another and when pointed out the mathematical inconsistency in their logic, refuses a demonstration. Thank you for admitting that your position is unscientific nonsense. Your ethics, your so-called morality is unscientific, illogical and therefore, delusional subjective nonsense. 1. I have already proven in this thread that phenomenal experience is irrelevant to moral consideration because those who have less phenomenal experience amongst us, have no lesser moral consideration towards them. You invented a nosensical positon of 'it just has to be present, the degree of presence is irrelevant', which is a logical and scientific absurdity. Presence is quantific, therefore for presence to matter, quantity of presence MUST also matter. This is proven via phenomenal reality itself ( ironic), because there is nothing phenomenal in this entire universe, which affects a situation by its presence but not in its quantity. 2. I have already proven that plants have consciousness by citing cutting edge peer reviewed research, something you dogmatically opposed before even digesting it completely, due to your religion of 'plant based ethics' nonsense. Ie, poorly masked superiorism.
  18. Depends on the culture you ask. Gender isn't completely present in all humanity. There are plenty of languages too, where gender == sex, where binary sex gets each its gender and everything else, including your feelings, get the third gender. This whole 'gender is a social concept, where it varies from actual sex' is more or less a western linguistic construct, not shared by many non-western cultures. Given how the European languages are near the bottom end of the spectrum as far as structurally sound languages go, its time for them to adapt by the better examples that exist in human existence.
  19. That is your opinion. Show us, in any mathematical equation or scientific process where presence of factor X is required but not the quantity. Even in catalytic processes, the quantity of catalyst present is important. If you cannot show such an example, then your position is scientifically invalid. Why is it a seperate consideration ? because you said so ? Demonstrate that it is seperate to the requirement of presence. So getting punched in the chest or lit on fire while being unconscious, aka comatose, is also weighed differently. No, it isn't. Illogical sanctimonious dogma deserves vitriol. Says the guy who dodges the question: what is your qualification re: signal processing, what is your familiarity with the theories in concern, to comment on what signal processing has/has not determined and provide an analysis on its conclusions ?
  20. If phenomenal aspects of our life have zero bearing in morality towards humans, they also have zero bearing in morality towards other beings. This is straightforward logic and called consistency. Ability to reason and choose is intelligence. A point you conceded. And what are the said characteristic ? I see no reason for your arbitrary pronounciation that it is a yes or no, aka digital response as opposed to a scaled, aka analog response. You just pulled that out with zero substantiation. What is the separation of issues regrding cows and humans in moral bearing then ? I asked you a question. Stop dodging and answer the question: Do you possess qualifications in signal processing fields ? Sorry, data says otherwise. To say that there is no mental state, subjective feeling when the data clearly indicates there is, is called data-mining. This is what creationists do, when they want to mine data for a pre-concieved stance and not alter stance when data predicates it. We have already done that in signal processing. As i said, these things are old news for signal processing theory, based on which we can determine if the output is generated by a conscious being or an algorithm. Its applicable for you, since you are arguing dogmatically in fields you have zero knowledge in. As i said, signal processing theory decisively confirms that plants have sentience. False. If presence of X is sufficient for moral consideration, then quantity of X matters. If X is required to influence a result, then the quantity of X is also relevant, in every single damn scientific process. Show me a math equation where X is required to influence the answer but quantity of X is immaterial. 1. Define what is this 'subjective experience of said info' 2. Prove that all mammalian brain are capable of these 'subjective experience of said info' 3. Prove that we can build a robot to show PTSD response without any subjective experience. You are talking out of your posterior in every single of these axioms, since you possess no real knowledge of it and it is showing. No, it does not. Signal theory says so and the PTSD response of a cow and a mustard plant are indistinguishable in signal theory. Nope, not required. McKlintock's intelligent cell may easily explain the behavior in plants, given that plants are way more genetically complex than animals. Neither do I. Doesn't change the fact that you are protecting your beleif system by talking about subjects you have zero expertise in, just like a dogmatic religious person. I don't think you understand basic mathematical logic. your logic fails when represented mathematically. Prove it. Plants show the same response to pain as I do, once vertibral bias of measurements are taken out of the equation. Self serving logic of a vegan. A plant responds the same way an animal does- including human- when assaulted, once we take irrelevant vertibral factors like screaming, running, muscles, etc out of the equation. Broad functional definitions are what matters when we talk of consciousness. Specific species-specific definitions are irrelevant and similar to Eugenics. No, the reason it isn't mentioned, because the author knows its irrelevant, as I have demonstrated. The cop-out is to the demonstation of the imposition of YOUR subjective definition of what life is worth living to other beings and not being an objective benchmark.
  21. We don't need more than a squadron or two of F-35s. What we do need however, are proven technology & sturdy planes that can be based 2000 kms from the arctic and still patrol them when required. Currently, the platforms that are proven technology, can cover 4000 km round trip ( with ariel refuelling or drop tanks) and exert air dominance are Rafales, F-15s, Su-30s and Su-35s. F-22 qualifies as well but its a moot point since USAF will not part with F-22 for anyone. Take out the Russian platforms because we all know that Canada, as a NATO member will not go to Russian suppliers over NATO companies. This leaves Rafale & the F-15. Well Japan is getting rid of their F-15s as soon as they have a buyer. So we get them at discount. They do the job, they are proven tech and will be the cheapest option out there.
  22. How do you know it is being forced to produce milk ? People have had cows in their farms for thousands of years and they care heck of a lot more about cows than people who have a disconnect with their food because the western world is the first time in human history we've had kids who think beef comes in a packet and not from a cow. Your argument may pertain to factory farming cows but just like how cows don't like being crammed into a space that isn't ideal for them, plants too do not like being forced into perfect neat rows and columns that are too dense for their normal growth pattern. But hey, i get it. For an animal like you, its way easier to relate to another animal than a plant. Just don't call it empathy. It isn't empathy when the concern exists only for things that are closer to you than others in their makeup.
  23. Yep. And if you chop down a plant to get to its roots, for a potato, it also only works once for the said plant. I understand where the other side comes from as well, which is why i hold food ideologies that have ethical considerations towards killing life, in respect. I have zero respect for vegan ideology though, which is just an animal's bias towards its own kind being dressed up as some morality, especially when cutting edge science is telling us that they are wrong to make such a moral distinction. Its a BS way of feeling superior to rest of the people, akin to any religion.
  24. Yes, but that is for production cost & logistics reasons, not due to propreiterial rights and technical capability reasons. Saab CANNOT make a jet engine to power the gripen, period. They *MUST* by it from the Americans or French or Russians or the Ango-German consortium. Thats it. Same with avionics, etc. When push comes to shove, LM and rest of USA is perfectly fine in making the entire F-35 by itself. Saab cannot do it and it makes the user of Gripen perpetually reliant on multiple nations not just one.
×
×
  • Create New...