The Stupid Thread

[raison de arizona]

We had some of that Prime drink, the kid is a YouTube junky, figures. We only paid like $2 a bottle though.

[sugar magnolia]

SLOCOMB, Ala (WDHN)— One man was stabbed at a Halloween costume party in Slocomb over a racist costume, according to Geneva County Sheriff’s Office

Michael Harrison Barrett, 18, a senior at Slocomb High School was arrested and charged with first-degree assault, accused of stabbing another partygoer in a fight.

According to a witness from the party, Barrett was wearing a Klu Klux Klan costume. The victim approached Barrett at the field party where a few hundred young people had gathered and told him the costume was offensive and that he should take it off.

Police say Barrett and the victim got into a fight over the costume and Barrett pulled a knife and stabbed the victim in the side.

The victim was taken to a Dothan area hospital where he underwent surgery and is reportedly in stable condition.

The party quickly dispersed after first responders arrived. According to GSCO Sheriff Tony Helms, attendees at the party were as young as 14.

Barrett was booked into the Geneva County Jail and has not bonded out as of Tuesday.

This is an ongoing investigation and GCSO is looking for any video showing the incident.

More arrests could be made in the future.

This could just as easily go in the racism thread.

[bill_g]

The camera is the new gun. Take pictures, and post them far and wide. Let the world know how stupid the KKK wannabe kid is. You get to stay out of jail, and he gets to live it down.

[raison de arizona]

The camera is the new gun. Take pictures, and post them far and wide. Let the world know how stupid the KKK wannabe kid is. You get to stay out of jail, and he gets to live it down.

[sugar magnolia]

The camera is the new gun. Take pictures, and post them far and wide. Let the world know how stupid the KKK wannabe kid is. You get to stay out of jail, and he gets to live it down.

The KKK guy is the one who went to jail for stabbing the guy who was offended.

[bill_g]

The camera is the new gun. Take pictures, and post them far and wide. Let the world know how stupid the KKK wannabe kid is. You get to stay out of jail, and he gets to live it down.

https: //twitter.com/Imposter_Edits/status/1587316115910393856

Yeah. Like that. With their names if possible. She told them what she thought, video'd their idiocy, and posted it. They may or may not pay a price for their "joke", but with enough people calling them out on this behavior they may grow a clue. One can hope.

[roadscholar]

In all fairness, the guy could have been costumed in KKK dress out of a misguided sense of irony. People have dressed as Hitler on Halloween, for goodness sake.

Not saying it was a good idea, mind you…

Now, the Walmart blackface asses, that’s another matter.

[sugar magnolia]

In all fairness, the guy could have been costumed in KKK dress out of a misguided sense of irony. People have dressed as Hitler on Halloween, for goodness sale.

Not saying it was a good idea, mind you…

Now, the Walmart blackface asses, that’s another matter.

Irony hasn't made it to Slocomb, Alabama yet.

[raison de arizona]

Thomas Massie, demonstrating that not all attention is good attention.

All food comes from carbon (CO2) in the air.

It’s a miracle.

The inputs to photosynthesis are Carbon Dioxide and Water.

The outputs are Oxygen and food (Carbohydrate).

It’s unscientific to think of CO2 as pollution.

I eat dry ice.

Massie is a MIT graduate, reportedly.

[Volkonski]

One suspects he did not graduate from the MIT School of Food Technology.

[humblescribe]

Too, also, he omitted the catalyst behind photosynthesis: Visible light especially in the blue and red bands. No light; no photosynthesis.

Then there is that corollary effect of evapotranspiration. This article 'splains it quite well.

https://ag.purdue.edu/climate/elevated- ... synthesis/

Without doing a ton of research on this subject, it is possible that increased atmospheric CO₂ might result in higher carbohydrates in plant tissues, the unfortunate consequence of these higher levels is warmer temperatures. These temperature increases screw up the rain cycle as the plant stomata are constricted thereby releasing less water vapor into the air.

Lastly, the end product of photosynthesis is glucose (sugar). Plants then metabolize the glucose into thousands of different chemicals that break apart the glucose structure and combine it with nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium for their building blocks. Trace minerals are also taken up by the roots and combined with these downstream molecules. There is ongoing research as to any potential deleterious effects on plant photosynthesis and metabolism with continuously sustained higher than normal levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

In short, Massie, if you are going to spout scientific facts to support your propaganda, then you better offer full disclosure. Otherwise you are lying by omission.

[keith]

Not only but also, there is a lot of evidence that increased CO2 does in fact increase plant growth, but at the cost of reduced nutrient value.

You get bigger crops, but you have to eat a lot more of that crop to get the same benefit.

Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

Edit: Fixed spelling, grammar, coherent thought

[Phoenix520]

Oh, your arguments are far too nuanced for MAGAts

CO2 is harmless, is what they’d hear.

[Sam the Centipede]

No! Whether increased CO₂ around a plant impacts its growth and nutrient levels is NOT important! What is important is global CO₂'s effect on global temperatures through the greenhouse effect and the consequent change in climates and sea levels.

Any change in plant response caused by small changes in CO₂ level in ambient air is negligible compared with its response to much larger changes in temperature and moisture levels. A parched plant doesn't care about CO₂.

[keith]

No! Whether increased CO₂ around a plant impacts its growth and nutrient levels is NOT important! What is important is global CO₂'s effect on global temperatures through the greenhouse effect and the consequent change in climates and sea levels.

Any change in plant response caused by small changes in CO₂ level in ambient air is negligible compared with its response to much larger changes in temperature and moisture levels. A parched plant doesn't care about CO₂.

What you say is, of course, correct.

It is, however, the wrong response to climate change deniers when they argue that mire CO2 is beneficial for crop plant growth.

Because the planet DOES need more plant sourced food (and less animal sourced food), right?

No because what the world needs is more plant base NUTRITION and CO2 forced vegitation does not offer that.

[humblescribe]

No! Whether increased CO₂ around a plant impacts its growth and nutrient levels is NOT important! What is important is global CO₂'s effect on global temperatures through the greenhouse effect and the consequent change in climates and sea levels.

Any change in plant response caused by small changes in CO₂ level in ambient air is negligible compared with its response to much larger changes in temperature and moisture levels. A parched plant doesn't care about CO₂.

What you say is, of course, correct.

It is, however, the wrong response to climate change deniers when they argue that mire CO2 is beneficial for crop plant growth.

Because the planet DOES need more plant sourced food (and less animal sourced food), right?

No because what the world needs is more plant base NUTRITION and CO2 forced vegitation does not offer that.

All of the above.

I might add that with the exception of wheat, most of the classic American midwest farming goes to anything other than people food. Corn is for ethanol, animal feed, and oil. Soybeans are for animal feed and vegetable oil. (The Soybean Council has a small paragraph that said Goodyear has experimented with using soybean oil in their tires for better traction in winter. Go figure.) Sunflowers are for vegetable oil and animal feed. Alfalfa is strictly grown for silage or hay.

Sure, we indirectly consume these crops once they have made their way through the various digestive systems of ruminants, poultry, and even some aquatic animals. Those animals do all the heavy lifting of converting incomplete vegetable protein (from a human perspective) into complete proteins. But the bovine, ovine, and porcine byproduct of CH₄ is another greenhouse gas that compromises our environment.

Note: We do consume field (dent) corn, soy, and sunflowers directly. But these are specialty crops, and they are varieties selected by the processor for specific human needs. The processor will contract with the farmer and supply him with the seed in exchange for buying the crop once it is at the matured stage for human consumption. We also grow popcorn (flint) corn and sweet corn for human consumption. But the yields on those crops are but a rounding error when we consider the vast acres of the other types that are used elsewhere.

[keith]

I might add that with the exception of wheat, most of the classic American midwest farming goes to anything other than people food.

You do understand that the American midwest is not the only place on the planet that grows crops, right?

[humblescribe]

Not sure of your intent, Keith.

I live in the center of California. I cannot leave my home without seeing people food grown everywhere. I have clients in the farming or packing businesses who grow farm to fork, not farm to feedlot or processing plant.

Yes, I realize that there are other locations besides the Midwest that grow crops.

[keith]

Not sure of your intent, Keith.

I live in the center of California. I cannot leave my home without seeing people food grown everywhere. I have clients in the farming or packing businesses who grow farm to fork, not farm to feedlot or processing plant.

Yes, I realize that there are other locations besides the Midwest that grow crops.

I refer to this sentence:

I might add that with the exception of wheat, most of the classic American midwest farming goes to anything other than people food. Corn is for ethanol, animal feed, and oil.

Wheat is not the only staple food crop on the planet, so what is your point of 'with the exception of wheat' and 'the classic American midwest farming'?

What about 'the classic Indonesian farming', 'the classic Chinese farming', 'the classic Indian farming', 'the classic African farming'? BILLIONS of people are absolutely dependent on those breadbasket centers, not just a few hundred millions. That's BILLIONS of people who will starve if the nutrition value of their crops drops.

The CO2 crisis is not just a problem for the American Midwest (or in your further argument, the California Central Valley, which is also in trouble from lack of water) that (except for wheat) doesn't grow much in the way of food crops - it is a crisis for the entire effing planet, for crying out loud.

Your self-centered 'America is the only place that counts' approach is what is killing this planet.

[sugar magnolia]

So your complaint is not that anything humblescribe said is actually incorrect, just that he chose to comment based on his own knowledge of his own country? I think most of us tend to relate to things we know about personally. It seems odd that it feels like you are intentionally trying to pick a fight or prove something beyond his comments, which seem to be factual.

[noblepa]

Massie is right in his comments about photosynthesis, as far as he goes.

Which isn't nearly far enough.

As the comments before me illustrate, photosynthesis is one tiny, nay, miniscule part of the earth's ecosystem. Yes, photosynthesis is a good thing, and yes, CO2 is necessary for it to happen. The ecosystem is a (rather) delicate balance. Too much of anything can throw that balance out of whack, with potentially disastrous results.

Yes, plant life is essential to animal life, including our own, not only as a food source but as a source of oxygen in the atmosphere.

One has to look at the totality of the parts of the ecosystem. Can the existing plant life take advantage of all the CO2 that is in the atmosphere? Apparently not, so it becomes a pollutant, trapping heat.

If he truly is an MIT graduate, even if he majored in electrical engineering, he certainly should recognize complex systems, such as earth's ecosphere, can't be judged by one isolated component.

This is a technique used by all demagogues: focus on one single point and completely disregard the bigger picture.

[humblescribe]

So your complaint is not that anything humblescribe said is actually incorrect, just that he chose to comment based on his own knowledge of his own country? I think most of us tend to relate to things we know about personally. It seems odd that it feels like you are intentionally trying to pick a fight or prove something beyond his comments, which seem to be factual.

Thank you for the kind words, Sugar.

I did not think that I had to spell it out. But I guess I gotta.

As was correctly pointed out above we eat way too much meat here in the US. Domestic ag should place more emphasis on fruits and vegetables instead of hogs, steers, and poultry. That was my point. Fruits and vegetable are more perishable, which increases the cost to the consumer. And growing perishable items is more expensive and labor-intensive than growing dent corn or soybeans.

I was not trying to ignore the plight across the planet. I was responding to the myopic point made by an idiot gun-toting representative from Kentucky. I think you were assuming facts not in evidence.

And, I am puzzled by what you said:

"The CO2 crisis is not just a problem for the American Midwest (or in your further argument, the California Central Valley, which is also in trouble from lack of water) that (except for wheat) doesn't grow much in the way of food crops"

About 95% of what we grow here is food. From apples and artichokes to zucchini and everything in between. According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture we provide over 1/3 of the USA's vegetables and 3/4 of the country's tree fruits and nuts. All this on less than 4% of the farms in the US.

[keith]

So your complaint is not that anything humblescribe said is actually incorrect, just that he chose to comment based on his own knowledge of his own country? I think most of us tend to relate to things we know about personally. It seems odd that it feels like you are intentionally trying to pick a fight or prove something beyond his comments, which seem to be factual.

No, that is not the 'angle' I was espousing.

I was objecting to the "argument" being made that the drop in nutrition value of CO2 forced crops is unimportant because the US Midwest doesn't grow much food for people except for wheat. What does that even mean? Animals that eat plants need nutrition too for crying out loud.

It is an unworthy approach no matter how you look at it. The Pacific is drowning, crops are failing in Africa, rice crops in Asia are withering in the heat. And your argument is that that's OK because the American midwest doesn't grow people food?

American luddites are known and cursed for this attitude all over the world. "America First!" and everyone else can go screw themselves.

[pipistrelle]

I took away that more goes into feeding animals vs. feeding people directly, which is unhealthy and inefficient.

I'm confused.

[keith]

I took away that more goes into feeding animals vs. feeding people directly, which is unhealthy and inefficient.

I'm confused.

Sorry Pip. What is confusing about it?

Increased CO2 'forces' more plant growth. So there is more plant mass for feeding people AND animals, which some climate change deniers claim is a good thing.

However, that new plant growth comes at a cost: less nutrient value. So to get the same nutrition out of those plants, more must be consumed. So, maybe instead of 100 grams of spinach you now need a kilo. Who can do that?

It doesn't matter whether its people or animals from that point of view. The claim that it doesn't matter because the American Midwest mostly grows animal feed is ludicrous. After all Indonesia only grows rice for people, Brasil only burns the rainforest to grow soy beans for cattle. How does that make a drastic reduction in nutrient value 'OK'?

This is not rocket science, I am confused about what you all are confused about.