Jump to content

Mouse Heaven or Hell (John Calhoun)


jross

Recommended Posts

Important for anyone who didn't finish reading the whole article, the last paragraph:

"Ultimately Calhoun’s work functions like a Rorschach blot—people see what they want to see. It’s worth remembering that not all lab experiments, especially contrived ones such as Universe 25, apply to the real world. In which case, perhaps the best lesson to learn here is a meta-lesson: that drawing lessons itself can be a dangerous thing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BerniePragle said:

Important for anyone who didn't finish reading the whole article, the last paragraph:

"Ultimately Calhoun’s work functions like a Rorschach blot—people see what they want to see. It’s worth remembering that not all lab experiments, especially contrived ones such as Universe 25, apply to the real world. In which case, perhaps the best lesson to learn here is a meta-lesson: that drawing lessons itself can be a dangerous thing."

Sure sounds like a ChatGPT disclaimer 😉

Have some fun Bernie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, jross said:

Sure sounds like a ChatGPT disclaimer 😉

Have some fun Bernie.

I have no idea what that is.  I think the author was saying that many people read something like this until they get to a part where they nod their head up and down, and quit reading.  Hence the Rorschach reference.  We are all like that.  As we can readily see, some more than others.

OK, a little fun:
A mom and dad were concerned that their teenage son spent all his time thinking about girls.  They took him to a Psychiatrist, who gave the teen the Rorschach test.  The Psychiatrist shows the kid the first ink blob and asks, What do you see?   The kid says, A naked chick!!  Another blob, same thing.  Six blobs, kid excitedly sees six naked girls.  The Psychiatrist is frustrated, wads all the ink blots up and throws them in the wastecan. The kid shouts, Hey are you throwing those away?  Can I have them?  Rorschach baby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LJB said:

how much is bill's fair share?

just out of curiosity...

LOL

That was merely a facetious but I think a limit on land ownership might make sense. No more than 3 parcels and 100 acres.

The world population was 2 billion in 1927. Now we have 4 times that and land zoned as single family interferes with the so called housing market.  Land is not like wheat and cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, psikeyhackr said:

LOL

That was merely a facetious but I think a limit on land ownership might make sense. No more than 3 parcels and 100 acres.

The world population was 2 billion in 1927. Now we have 4 times that and land zoned as single family interferes with the so called housing market.  Land is not like wheat and cars.

I personally know multiple farmers with more than 10,000 acres. In many areas out west 3 sections wouldn't be enough to raise a family on. Get in the Red River Valley or into Iowa and 3 sections is pushing the limits of a family farm. 100 acres wouldn't provide a living for anyone. 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

I personally know multiple farmers with more than 10,000 acres. In many areas out west 3 sections wouldn't be enough to raise a family on. Get in the Red River Valley or into Iowa and 3 sections is pushing the limits of a family farm. 100 acres wouldn't provide a living for anyone. 

Land management has to be complicated. Do farmers have to pay mortgages on that land? Do they pay taxes on it? Doesn't that mean that the government really owns it.

Ownership of land is really just an idea in people's heads with European legalisms.

The farmer could "own" 100 acres and rent the rest from the government and eliminate the bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, psikeyhackr said:

Land management has to be complicated. Do farmers have to pay mortgages on that land? Do they pay taxes on it? Doesn't that mean that the government really owns it.

Ownership of land is really just an idea in people's heads with European legalisms.

The farmer could "own" 100 acres and rent the rest from the government and eliminate the bank.

Yes everything is better when the government gets involved. Imagine having a business where everything changes every time there's an election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Absolutely.  No other way to do it.

Maybe if they get out of hand we can starve them out like Russia did to Ukraine, then we can replace them with the farmers who fall in line with the party. Then we can starve out the whole country because we can't produce enough food. Bread lines and misery shared equally.  But that's all history,  that would never happen again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, El Luchador said:

Maybe if they get out of hand we can starve them out like Russia did to Ukraine, then we can replace them with the farmers who fall in line with the party. Then we can starve out the whole country because we can't produce enough food. Bread lines and misery shared equally.  But that's all history,  that would never happen again. 

Are you drinking tonight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

You do realize that actually happened?  I love how everyone thinks that would never happen again.  As if the morality of society somehow is so much higher than in the past, and if our people are in  charge we'd usher in the utopia. 

Ok, you are talking about the Soviet Union.  Of course it happened. It continues to happen all over the world.  Ask an historian about the great depression.

I always wonder what contribution WW2 had in the construction of that image of the USSR.  They lost so many people and resources.  Particularly men.  I think 15% of their population.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Ok, you are talking about the Soviet Union.  Of course it happened. It continues to happen all over the world.  Ask an historian about the great depression.

I always wonder what contribution WW2 had in the construction of that image of the USSR.  They lost so many people and resources.  Particularly men.  I think 15% of their population.

 

Stalin intentionally killed 4 million. Intentionally.  He took all their food. It wasn't a natural disaster,  it was genocide.  They rebelled again communism. He set them straight. That only happens when the government has control and people can't fight back. Since Ukraine feed the rest of the country and they killed off many of the experienced farmers and replaced them with whom ever toed the line many others died from the lack of experience and lost productivity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, El Luchador said:

Stalin intentionally killed 4 million. Intentionally.  He took all their food. It wasn't a natural disaster,  it was genocide.  They rebelled again communism. He set them straight. That only happens when the government has control and people can't fight back. Since Ukraine feed the rest of the country and they killed off many of the experienced farmers and replaced them with whom ever toed the line many others died from the lack of experience and lost productivity. 

Stalin is an easy target.  Not exactly wrong, but not exactly right either.  You gonna blame the libtards when the great depression repeats?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

They lost so many people and resources.  Particularly men.  I think 15% of their population.

 

They lost so many people?   You make it sound like an accident.  Stalin starved them out.   He killed them, they were not lost.  Stalin only compares to Mao for how many were sacrificed on the alter of communism.  

mspart

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, El Luchador said:

I personally know multiple farmers with more than 10,000 acres. In many areas out west 3 sections wouldn't be enough to raise a family on. Get in the Red River Valley or into Iowa and 3 sections is pushing the limits of a family farm. 100 acres wouldn't provide a living for anyone. 

i imagine it is hard for anyone who has grown up exclusively in urban environments to be able to conceptualize land in the way anyone who has experience working land does...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...