discusseded

joined 1 year ago
[–] discusseded@programming.dev 1 points 3 weeks ago

Sounds like there were conversation laws put in place at some point. Those laws do a great job at allowing nature to rebalance populations when people go too far with hunting.

[–] discusseded@programming.dev 2 points 3 weeks ago

Same, my dad is a hunter and I believe the person above is confusing trophy hunters with just hunters. While my dad hunts, I don't believe I could do the same. It's just not in me, but I have all due respect for them. Many revere nature, love animals, and hunting is an ancestral activity that pre-dates history.

Some hunters are dicks. But that doesn't mean hunting predators is a dick move. You can hunt bears responsibly, using the meat and the rest.

It's really weird to think that predator meat is somehow different from prey meat. Food all boils down to chemistry and it all ends up the same after digestion. The only difference is the microbes involved in the process, but those don't carry on into the meat. Only prions and parasites pass into the meat, and that happens basically no matter where you are on the food chain.

[–] discusseded@programming.dev 16 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

This is amazing. Far better than killing them off.

[–] discusseded@programming.dev 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (4 children)

I ate bear meat once and it was delicious.

I'm also looking forward to a nice tuna melt sandwich.

Your take is retarded.

[–] discusseded@programming.dev 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Here is his acknowledgement and explanation if anyone is interested:

https://youtu.be/LHg3_iYIBVQ?si=fGQiaY3IlwT0XJ2s

[–] discusseded@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago

I did end up watching that episode. The part where Jon called him a red-pilled Smokey the Bear was really funny.

The accusation wasn't of rape but sexual assault, which is quite different, though no less wrong.

The show makes the distinction of mainstream and not. Not sure the real difference is liberal versus conservative.

And the Samoa situation is really strange, but I don't think Robert went around and told locals to not vaccinate. I said in another comment that he has something to answer for here, but saying he is responsible seems like speculation, given the evidence as presented.

[–] discusseded@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago

I can see how the advance/change of criteria can lead to an increase in diagnosis. But I don't think it's merely a perception that has evolved. Cancer rates in youth are rising significantly. The recommended age for common cancer screens are being lowered to reflect the change.

There was a time when the use of lead was perfectly normal and the flight to eliminate it for public safety was deemed as fringe. Likewise, I feel that we have new kinds of pollutants affecting our health and I have a keen interest in knowing what's safe and what isn't, now that I have children to care for.

I see vaccinations as one of humanity's greatest achievements. mRNA technology is exciting to me. But just like scaremongering upsets me, so does hasty policy making and social policing.

That said, my family is fully up to date on vaccination schedules. But I have worries that if we let our guards down and only take in facts on authority, we'll give way to corruption due to our unquestioning nature. This is in no way limited to vaccines, in fact I hardly question vaccines at all. I'm mostly interested in industrial pollution and Robert has extensive experience in this area. That's why I favored him, as a figure who lived to expose industrial and government corruption at the cost of human health.

view more: next ›