3 ms·

> They’re not actually the ones rapidly deforesting or otherwise devastating mostly pristine ecosystems. You're aware that about 90% of the megafauna in the Am

> They’re not actually the ones rapidly deforesting or otherwise devastating mostly pristine ecosystems. You're aware that about 90% of the megafauna in the Americas went extinct within a few centuries after the arrival of the early Native Americans? Yeah, well, it wasn't Archer Daniels Midland or Cargill that did that.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
There are so many things in such a short comment to unpack. I don’t think I have the energy to do so right now, but I’ll leave these initial thoughts: You’ve got a rhetorical style that suggests you’re familiar with sparring on the topic. I’m not interested in that kind of exchange even if I do have energy for it. If that’s how you want to discuss the topic, you may have the last word. If I’ve mistakenly categorized your reply, - What happened when natives arrived is as relevant to what their descendants do now, as what happened when europeans arrived characterizes what their descendants do now. I’ll leave that open ended - Of course businesses which didn’t exist couldn’t have caused things which happened before they existed - The history of when natives arrived or even whether they migrated is disputed - All of this historical focus might be interesting from a “how did now come to be?” perspective, but it’s not an analysis of what’s happening now - Applying a similar historical analysis to euro records doesn’t produce megafauna or any other exculpatory extinction records Now if we resume conversation, I hope we can agree not to engage such gotcha bullshit.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  You're talking "rhetorical style". I'm talking facts. Someone is bullshitting here, all right, but it's not me. I agree that this conversation isn't really serving any purpose, though.

3 ms·

> They’re not actually the ones rapidly deforesting or otherwise devastating mostly pristine ecosystems. You're aware that about 90% of the megafauna in the Am

by Turing_Machine 4y ago

eyelidlessness 4y ago
There are so many things in such a short comment to unpack. I don’t think I have the energy to do so right now, but I’ll leave these initial thoughts: You’ve got a rhetorical style that suggests you’re familiar with sparring on the topic. I’m not interested in that kind of exchange even if I do have energy for it. If that’s how you want to discuss the topic, you may have the last word. If I’ve mistakenly categorized your reply, - What happened when natives arrived is as relevant to what their descendants do now, as what happened when europeans arrived characterizes what their descendants do now. I’ll leave that open ended - Of course businesses which didn’t exist couldn’t have caused things which happened before they existed - The history of when natives arrived or even whether they migrated is disputed - All of this historical focus might be interesting from a “how did now come to be?” perspective, but it’s not an analysis of what’s happening now - Applying a similar historical analysis to euro records doesn’t produce megafauna or any other exculpatory extinction records Now if we resume conversation, I hope we can agree not to engage such gotcha bullshit.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  You're talking "rhetorical style". I'm talking facts. Someone is bullshitting here, all right, but it's not me. I agree that this conversation isn't really serving any purpose, though.