canuckistani
-
Posts
2,769 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by canuckistani
-
-
4 hours ago, bishopshodan said:
However Monsieur Mustard Plant,
A nice side effect is a vegan diet removes the suffering from the animals that have intelligence and emotions that we can relate to.
That’s like saying it’s more ethical to support your criminal family member over the innocent stranger coz you relate to your family more. While that may be true(relatability to animals over plants), it doesn’t make it more ethical. We are vertibrates. We relate more to vertibrates. It’s not that plants don’t react to pain, they do. We just relate pain response from vertibrate animals more than non vertibrates and even more them than plants. That’s called cognitive bias. Not ethics.
-
14 hours ago, The Vancouver Connection said:
I'm going to leave this right here...LOL @ people thinking a meat based diet requires less resources.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07k3z96
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/video-un-says-plant-based-diets-can-help-fight-climate-change/
Meat based diet that is asiatic in its meat consumption is more eco friendly than vegan diet. That is mathematically proven.
-
3
-
-
Let’s ot get over excited people. Puljularvi is a very low probability Canucks acquisition for two reasons:
Right now we don’t actually have room anywhere but the 4th line (long term for this season), to try him out. Yes, we can develop him more in the AHL but Poolparty is not gonna prefer a trade that gets him consistent AHL time vs consistent but sheltered NHL times, also to develop. Ie, someth8ng Tampa did last year with sergachev. And that’s perfectly fine, good on him for that.
Reason #2 and this is probably the big one: we don’t have much in line to offer, than an extremely risky low value Goldobin, that’d work as trade. Our trade candidates for firinge player/spare parts and mid end expendable prospects are simply not there. THere will be better offers out there than we can give EDM.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
20 minutes ago, luckylager said:Hmm, nothing against Higgins, but I'd really like the team to higher a development guy who displayed some level of creativity during their career.
We're stacked with boring AF, middle of the road former NHL'ers.
Boring.
This Is not how coaching and player development works. Gretzky was a crap coach. So was Maradona. This is because genius and creativity cannot be taught. Neither can geniuses communicate or teach the mere mortals. What would say Horvat do with the advice of ‘ just do what I did with Kerri in SCF... no look rink wide saucer pass to his tape, while you fade away the other direction to fake the goalie, throwing in a little leg pump-fake ‘ ??
But what can be taught to anyone, including geniuses, is hard work, efficiency, consistency etc. This is why low end plugs in sports end up being hall of farmer coaches.
-
9
-
55 minutes ago, DonLever said:
But Hong Kong was not annexed by China. It was the other way around: Hong Kong was "annexed" by England in 1842 after China lost to England in the first Opium War. The peace treaty (Treaty of Nanking) between England and China gave Hong Kong to Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking
Fast forward 155 years to 1997, when Britain gave back Hong back to China as result of the 1984 deal between Britain and China. The 1984 agreement set out the parameters for the giving back of Hong Kong and its Territories. The is where the "one country, 2 system" comes into play.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration
Well, China did conquer the Hong Kong region from Nanyue in 100 BCE and again from the Yuan dynasty under the Ming in 1300s. Contrary to popular Chinese propaganda of one China tracing to Yuan dynasty, the Yuan to Ming was not a change of government( as it is in several other cases of dynastic overthrow). It was a war of independence and the Yuan were evicted from most of China, surviving for hundreds of years as the Northern Yuan, which the Qing dynasty conquered finally along with rest of China. As such, Chinese official claims stating their territorial claims due to Yuan Dynasty(Mongols), is factually incorrect. The Ming didn’t defeat the Yuan and promptly take over all their holdings, extinguishing the Yuan and therefore, claim a ‘dynastic Change to the same polity/government’. The Ming ran a rebellion, which succeeded from evicting the Yuan from most of China, but Yuan lived on, controlling most of Inner Mongolia, Mongolia and large parts of Cinjiang(before the Uighur broke away from the Northern Yuan, as the Dzungar Empire a century later). It was a war of eviction of the foreign dynasty, which limped on in its own homelands as The Northern Yuan. China likes to ignore this point, mostly to deny independence legitimacy for Tibet and Dzungaria, the latter which it renamed in the Sinicized form of Xinjiang.
In anycase, my point is, return of Chinese sovereignty to Hong Kong was not unconditional. It was contingent of the parameters set out in the agreement. As such, people are in legal right to dispute China’s sovereignty over Hong Kong, if China is non compliant to the terms of sovereign handover.
-
To be honest, this depends a lot on actually where Bo and EP hit their celings(or look like they are) in 2-3 years. Ie, if say around 2022 summer we see EP being an elite 90-100pointer 1C and Bo having a 0.9-1ppg pace while doing a Selke like job for the team, then the need for other two centres effectively become that of ‘ do not screw it up, no flash needed 3C’ and ‘defensive dream/ideal 4C’ needs.
In such a scenario, we are likely keeping Gaudette and trading Madden for other benefits. Or trading them both and trading for the Manny Malhotra and Jay Beagle of the current times.
If however, EP and BO underachieve- say BOs ceiling becomes 50-60 pointer and EP is a 70-80 pointer guy, we may need the offensively flashy defensively reliable 3C and ‘ideal 4C’ guy. Then Madden May win out.
-
On 7/26/2019 at 1:46 PM, DonLever said:
The British did not annex Hong Kong. Hong Kong was ceded to Britain in the Treaty of Nanking in 1842 as a result of the First Opium War. Hong Kong was given to Britain as part of the peace deal between the Chinese government and England.
The comparison between Tiber is totally inappropriate. Tibet was once an independent country while Hong Kong was always a part of China until 1842. Hong Kong was basically a fishing village back in 1842 with a population of 7450, not the millions Hong Kong have now.
The comparison between tibet and Hong Kong is that both are formally annexed by China.
-
8 hours ago, J-23 said:
If Gaudette or Madden really come through, I can see him getting moved.
He wasn't taking a lot of face-offs near end of the season, could have been injuries though...
Centres are not just for face offs. It’s actually a bonus perk in the large scheme of things for elite centres. The physics of hockey is very simple in this regard. Center of the ice offers most options of any other regions on the ice surface. As such, you want your most creative player in the center if possible. If your most creative player is a natural center, that’s the last person to get moved from preferred position for skaters. Period. Petey is gonna be a center for all his career and when he isn’t, it’s gonna look like a mistake. Plus Peters game is all about Iq and smarts. Especially in the defensive zone. He is going to be a defensive stalwart due to his tenacity but mostly by way of his positioning, stick placement, anticipation etc. Playing him in a wing is gonna force him to make far more staple to the board moves in the defensive zones, which not only diminishes his most valuable quality in the d zone, it also mak s him far greater injury risk. If Rookie Petey in NHL , after one year of SHL wingman duties didn’t play as a winger, he won’t moving forward. It’s Gaudette or Madden who have to shuffle,period.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:
ah, we'll have to agree to disagree my friend. I don't know why people who want to help trans rights also have to support places that host anti-trans views. Seems cruel to me.
Because those institutions are knowledge institutions. In a knowledge institution, it’s criticsl that each and every idea, fact, etc. Are critiqued, shown the supportive and non supportive evidence, etc. To come to a knowledge based positions. University, libraries etc are kind of obligated in principle to platform any conceivable thought. Else it’s just a propaganda machine, which is the antithesis of education( which always is the end product of discourse).
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Down by the River said:
Except this is what I said... as instruments improve our understanding of phenomenon changes, and then we can create more precise measures of the concepts we are interested in (AKA operationalization; i.e., what I said in my original post).
Ok. I thought you meant that scientists have opinions on what data matters and what does not. Which is clearly not Th case
-
11 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:
Oh lighten up, I said that with the troll face.
Sorry my sarcasm meter is very broken lately.
-
3 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:
But it’s definitely a thing from you since you’re above standing up for yourself in the face of racism, right?
Standing up for myself does not involve snatching rights from others. Authoritarianism in social ideology is not what I condone but that’s par for the course for most leftists or rightists.
-
7 hours ago, Down by the River said:
This is showing naivety about the process of data collection. The operationalization of even great data is still influenced by opinion. Sometimes this opinion is driven by subjectivity. Sometimes it is driven by an interpretation of a concept that is different from someone else's. This is not a bad thing, nor does it mean that opinion is always "bad", but it does mean that really smart people might disagree on how to measure data and this can impact results.
Lol. This almost never happens in empiric data collection fields. Differences arise in studies not because of bias of data collection, but due to different set of instruments used for phenomenal observations. Until 20 years ago we did not have the tech to gather data from ice core samples. Until 3 years ago we did not have the means to gather radar data on space based satellites for ground or sea level changes. In empiric fields, we almost never disagree on what data should be measured. We simply evolve with the instruments at our disposal. The so called difference we have, is agenda driven controls difference, which takes scientific people to discern and often if the controls and the premise are consistent to each other, the study is deemed a success even if it’s overall incomplete or misquoted in media.
-
7 hours ago, HerrDrFunk said:
We've now gotten to "reverse racism".
lol
It’s definitely a thing and it’s sad that a Colored person like me have to point it out to the loony left.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Alflives said:
Interesting, does it matter if the meat is cooked? Eskimos had no wood for fires so ate raw meat. I think that’s why they’re called Eskimos
Not to digestibility, it makes difference in terms of microbial/parasitic exposure. For most veg, it’s digestibility issue since our diet has evolved with meat and fruit far longer than with vegetables. There are no obligate vegetarian species that cannot digest cellulose. But like obligate carnivores, we can digest raw meat. This makes us omnivores which are empirically closer to meat based diet than veg based diet.
-
2
-
-
Just now, Alflives said:
I think with Eskimos is they developed guts that help their bodies survive on s diet of only raw meat. If I remember right it’s about there being no fruits and veggies up where the lived. Their diet was raw meet. Their guts are different from our guts because of history of their society. Maybe Chinese people need rice, and Egyptians need wheat?
i don’t think our guts are all the same.
We can all live exclusively on meat. Most mongols barely ate grains too and subsisted in meat and milk products.
-
2
-
-
Just now, Alflives said:
Haven’t put guts developed based on the diet of our ancestors? I read years ago Eskimo people can digest uncooked meat or something like that.
We can all digest uncooked meat of any kind. Including raw chicken. We cannot digest most vegetables raw, period. Rice, wheat, potatoes, beans, etc. Eaten raw is straight up undigestible for species Homo sapiens. Meat not being good for us is a false statement, meat in western portions is not good for us, which could be true for any and all food in excess quantity.
-
3
-
-
14 minutes ago, The Vancouver Connection said:
Or maybe, just maybe, meat isn't that good for you...
Meat in appropriate portion is good for you and is integral to diet. Empirically meat is way easier to digest than vegetables for us.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Ferland Petey. Boeser
Baer. Bo. Miller
Pearson Sutter Virtanen
leivo beagle motte
edler. Myers
hughes tanev
benn stecher
marky
-
22 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
Ergo, I refuse to do your work for you because i can't stand you
Being able to stand your opposition or not does not release you from the ethical burden of substantiating your claims.
QuoteDon't confuse the two. Quite simply I am saying you're literally not worth the time it would take to search it up. As in I've spent thirty seconds more responding to you than I ever wanted to and feel the need to wash my hands because of it.
As for your statement of "communist folks" Lol, that's your absolute again. Someone doesn't like you, agree with you or finds you to effectively be worth less than hot dog leavings on a summer sidewalk and obviously it's them not you.
Obviously
Red herring, since I don’t accuse everyone who disagrees with me as a communist leaning. Anyways, a cop out is par for the course. This is not for my benefit but for everyone who reads these threads, to see that your statement is unsubstantiated.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:
Open your eyes. Pay attention and simply use google. I refuse to do your homework for you because quite honestly I cannot stand you as I find you to be pedantic and quite honestly boorish in your endless need to be correct. Theres' FTG and Oldnews and you manage to somehow be more smarmy than both.
I've asked you not respond to me numerous times yet here you are. So, go look for yourself. Anyone else i'd happily provide proof, you? Not a damned chance
Ergo, your claim is unsubstantiated. Thanks. I am not surprised that communist leaning folks tend to run away or shut down conversation with those who have experience with communists. Correctness is not a need, by the way, its an ethical obligation to strive for. Something extremists from both ends forget.
-
1
-
-
On 7/20/2019 at 9:25 AM, Rob_Zepp said:
Come to a conclusion.
- Extreme left - they want equality of outcome irrespective of how qualified or how hard people work towards a given outcome. What is yours is theirs and they will exhaust all avenues to make that happen. Government (huge) exists to distribute all the wealth equally.
- Extreme right - they want inequality of outcome based upon social/inherited/assigned advantage. What is yours is theirs and they will exhaust all avenues to make that happen. Government (small) exists to protect their rights to maintain the inequality.
- Centrist - equality of opportunity. What you earn is yours. Those who cannot property earn are aided. Government (right sized) exists to help those who cannot help themselves.
Based upon society debate (use the US as the example and CDC as a microcosm), seemingly very few in the middle. It is getting lonely here.
Welcome to the center in the west, it’s practically non existent because of ridiculous adherence to good vs bad model of ethics.
-
1
-
23 hours ago, Warhippy said:
Right wing governance has expanded all levels of government above what the left has done but cut funding to do it.
Your summation is close but wildly inaccurate and based off of extremes.
You're also no centrist.
Qualitative proof please that right wing govts have expanded all levels of governance.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 7/7/2019 at 7:07 PM, chilliwiggins said:He has our eggs in that basket. All in on an extension is what he is solely about and it’s a short term move he has done to get that. Bennings future is 2019/20 Team Canucks are farther down the road and that’s always something to keep an eye on. People can say all they want about their love for Benning but selling first round draft picks for a win now mentality when your no where near a contender makes no sense
Except it’s not a first rounder for just short term gain. It was for a player who has 3 consecutive 20 goal seasons , playing on the second/third line, who has killed penalties before decently, can play any forward position, non perimeter type,is in his mid 20s and signed for 4 more years at a contract just a shade over 5 million, aka 1/16 of the cap. That’s extremely good value for a non lottery pick. Far bigger risks are taken via 1st round trades. Banning has not sacrificed the future for his own contract imo.
-
8
Time for the Calgary Stampede to Evolve... ?
in Off-Topic General
Posted
Lol. Fact is if you feed your animal farm waste cellulose and eat that animal, provided the animal you eat survives only on such farm waste, omnivore diet is decisively more environmentally friendly than vegan diet. This is because vegan diet wastes the calories of cellulose that other animals can digest but we cannot. Fact is, asiatic or at least non modern western omnivore diet is the most sustainable and healthy diet for us.