7 ms·

Whether or not you call yourself the "L" word, you argument relies on free market fundamentalism, which is just as bad. Free Market Fundamentalism: the belief

Whether or not you call yourself the "L" word, you argument relies on free market fundamentalism, which is just as bad. Free Market Fundamentalism: the belief that markets are giant calculating machines that output optimal social relations, i.e. Pareto optimal transactions

tptacek 11y ago
That is also false. Please don't use me as a coat rack for arguments you want to make that are unrelated to mine.
- schiffern 11y ago
  If you'd like to talk about the glaring hole I pointed out in your argument instead of clutching your pearls, I'd be happy to change topic! :)
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I am convinced you don't understand my argument and have substituted for it the most immediately available outrageous argument. Please don't do that.
    - schiffern 11y ago
      Then please, correct me! How did you come to the conclusion that neonicotinoids have an overall net positive effect on agriculture?
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Because the alternatives to neonicotinoids are broader-spectrum pesticides that affect other kinds of animal life, including mammals, as I've said repeatedly on the thread. I don't know why you insist on being so overtly hostile, but whatever the reason, let me promise that it doesn't make you more persuasive.
        schiffern 11y ago
        >Because the alternatives to neonicotinoids are broader-spectrum pesticides Well 'ere's yer problem! ;) You're starting off by assuming that agriculture must use pesticides to grow food. But is that really true? I submit to you that it is not. Furthermore, I submit that a food system that depends on pesticides is doomed to self-destruct (because of inevitable biogeophysical processes). Pesticides destroy the nutrient cycling microorganisms in the soil leading to infertility, erosion, and ultimately desertification. Again, soil microbiologist Elaine Ingham explains the process better than I could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H60ritjag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H60ritjag >I don't know why you insist on being so overtly hostile You're right. My apologies, and edited.

tptacek 11y ago

That is also false. Please don't use me as a coat rack for arguments you want to make that are unrelated to mine.

schiffern 11y ago
If you'd like to talk about the glaring hole I pointed out in your argument instead of clutching your pearls, I'd be happy to change topic! :)
- tptacek 11y ago
  I am convinced you don't understand my argument and have substituted for it the most immediately available outrageous argument. Please don't do that.
  - schiffern 11y ago
    Then please, correct me! How did you come to the conclusion that neonicotinoids have an overall net positive effect on agriculture?
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Because the alternatives to neonicotinoids are broader-spectrum pesticides that affect other kinds of animal life, including mammals, as I've said repeatedly on the thread. I don't know why you insist on being so overtly hostile, but whatever the reason, let me promise that it doesn't make you more persuasive.
      - schiffern 11y ago
        >Because the alternatives to neonicotinoids are broader-spectrum pesticides Well 'ere's yer problem! ;) You're starting off by assuming that agriculture must use pesticides to grow food. But is that really true? I submit to you that it is not. Furthermore, I submit that a food system that depends on pesticides is doomed to self-destruct (because of inevitable biogeophysical processes). Pesticides destroy the nutrient cycling microorganisms in the soil leading to infertility, erosion, and ultimately desertification. Again, soil microbiologist Elaine Ingham explains the process better than I could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H60ritjag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H60ritjag >I don't know why you insist on being so overtly hostile You're right. My apologies, and edited.