This is your problem: you're intellectually dishonest in always assuming bad faith in others, and you expect people to treat you with respect that you deny them.
If YOU misunderstand somebody else's argument, obviously that person is just an idiot and was wrong/didn't explain it well enough.
If somebody else misunderstands your argument, they didn't misunderstand at all and are just intentionally straw manning you to "win" (For who? The audience? Hardly anybody is reading this).
In this case, you drastically misunderstood my point. And now you're rage-quitting again like a child.
Come back or don't. Maybe just come back when you're drunk, if you're not emotionally mature enough to have a real conversation while sober.
vdofthegoodkind wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 3:07 pm
I said, japanese people live long while having rice as a staple food in their diet, with which I implied it's quite obvious you can live a long healthy life with rice as the staple in your diet, ergo "it's nutritionally poor" is an invalid counterargument to justify needlessly killing animals for wheat or other staple foods -_-
We could also get calories from sugarcane, which is pretty efficient (something like 17 million calories per acre).
That doesn't mean it provides other nutritional needs, and it doesn't mean that many calories from sugar is healthy (the evidence so far seems to suggest a relatively lower carbohydrate diet with higher macros from healthy mono and polyunsaturated fats is better).
Unlike sugarcane (and to a lesser degree rice) wheat does not
just supply calories.
The fact that rice is SO nutritionally poor obviously does not mean it will kill you (although the large amount of high GI starch probably isn't optimal, certain populations of Japanese are probably long-lived despite rice consumption due to factors I mentioned), it means you have to eat more nutritionally dense foods to make up for that nutritional poverty from your staple. It over-supplies calories relative to other needs, and not calories in a good form.
People only have good nutrition status on rice by making up for it with other foods, and that becomes more difficult to do with rice. For Japanese, they do it with fish, vegetables, tofu and fermented soy, and that means the proportions of these things in the diet need to be increased relative to a wheat based diet.
You have to look at an entire diet plan to evaluate the resource use.
That doesn't make rice overall inefficient, but it makes it a little less efficient than calories alone would indicate due to the complications of putting it into practice. The 11 million calories per acre is pulled down by the larger proportion of 6 million calories an acre of soy and 2 million calories an acre from vegetables (fish is harder to factor in, it's "free" if it's ocean caught, but there are sustainability issues).
Rice probably still beats wheat at 4 million an acre, but it's less impressive a victory. Then when we take into account environmental issues and others, it's not as clear.
It's a consideration we have to take into account when assessing yield per acre: we can not JUST look at calories, we also have to look at nutrients and the expense of providing what those crops are lacking.
So yes, it IS relevant (as one important factor of consideration) that rice is nutritionally poor, otherwise we should be looking to sugar as our staple as Durianrider teaches.
Potatoes have a stronger argument behind them, since they're more nutrient rich and even have higher yield than rice, but unfortunately storage methods are not environmentally friendly (yet).
The fact that you so severely misunderstood my point, and thought there was no other possible explanation for the miscommunication than straw manning, speaks to your ignorance of nutrition. Your confidence on the matter despite that is probably best attributed to Dunning-Kruger. Or, as has happened a few times now, you're just looking for things to get angry about so you can leave in a huff and quit this argument that you are losing but convince yourself that it's because the other side was being mean to you.
vdofthegoodkind wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 3:07 pmNot only do you straw man the shit out of everything I say, you then have the fucking nerve to turn it around on me and claim I am the one who is constantly making fallacies.
You misunderstood my point and replied with something that only seemed relevant in the context of making that fallacy (you could have just clarified rather than getting so grumpy).
We know now (or at least I know now) that it was a miscommunication stemming from your failure to grasp how nutritional poverty in a crop (like rice or sugar) could possibly be relevant as an important consideration against its naive caloric yield.
Rice still has good yield and is an efficient food, but it's not as good as it looks compared to other options given its nutritional profile. If you're trying to count animal deaths in agriculture, that's pretty important and is one of many factors that will throw off your calculations.
My point all along has been the complexity of evaluating these issues; a complexity that makes comparing different plant crops subject to huge margins of error. Do you know what a chaotic function is? Because the number of variables we're dealing with here create one. Small shifts in yield, nutrient composition, logistics of storage, spoilage, fertilizer, water usage, etc. etc. all influence each other.
It's relatively easy to identify certain predominant forms of animal agriculture as inefficient and harmful. It's much more difficult to distinguish between different forms of plant agriculture, and it is by no means clear that we can do that naively and with so little evidence beyond a few extreme outliers. It does not seem like a terribly productive endeavor of sorting the ants on the floor when we still have to contend with the elephant in the room. And in terms of functional heuristics for a population, any significant attempt to focus on those relatively minor differences between most forms of plant agriculture is just over-complicating things and making it more difficult to solve more serious and immediate problems.
Obviously I'm not going to hesitate to point out any confounding variables that support my argument of the complexity of these situations.
The bottom line: This is the internet, and it's a text conversation that is by no means real-time. You need to get used to the fact that you're not perfect at conveying your arguments and people will misunderstand you. You might have to clarify. You can get annoyed if that makes you feel good about yourself, but it happens, and assuming it's malicious and getting all upset about it and rage-quitting (repeatedly
) just makes you look like an immature and over-sensitive asshole.
Asshole or not you're welcome here as this is mostly a free speech discussion forum, but don't expect people to walk on egg shells around you or to read your mind when you communicate imprecisely.
