Does "love" mean no disagreements?

[Rian Jackson]

7.5) Create cryptic presentation in which we consider bringing a dead fish to illustrate some point. Presentation partner lacks the proper time to visit the Marxaslokk fish market prior to presentation. Damn.

This scares me for some reason.

don't worry, this was a good three years ago now.
i might have changed since then.


of, and stuie, are we enemies now? damn.... *sigh* well, if i must. prepare your ass for the kicking.

[stuart]

are we enemies now

only in the ring lemon drop

<smoooch>

[Rian Jackson]

are we enemies now

only in the ring lemon drop

<smoooch>

lemon drop. this is getting bad. that's it, i'm moosekissing you next time we're within striking range!!!

[stuart]

I laugh when Kerry complains about Bush's energy policy. It is as if US policy somehow sets world prices. Got news ... the single fastest growing consumer of world oil is CHINA. Once they get 4 times more cars on the road than the US has, our energy policy isn't going to amount to a pinch of owl scat

Cheneys energy policy led to the placement of FER Commisioners that were hand picked by Ken Lay. These folks then turned a blind eye when their former company and others committed fraud in western energy markets. So, while they did not create legislation directly, the circumnavigation of existing legislation had the same effect.

Also, if energy policy had been set that aggressively targeted alternatives to oil then the growing demands of china on the world oil market would not have such dire consequences. Unfortunately, we are about 20 years too late on that front as we rapidly approach global peak oil production. It's gonna be a pretty bleak state when we pass $100 bucks a barrel within the next decade.

[stuart]

Also, the Iraq war, make no misstake, is energy policy. And I have a right to complain about it.

[geekster]

Unfortunately, we are about 20 years too late on that front as we rapidly approach global peak oil production. It's gonna be a pretty bleak state when we pass $100 bucks a barrel within the next decade.

So it's all Jimmy Carter's fault? Okay. I think we are PAST global peak production. Russia used to be the #2 producer in the world, production has been declining. Production is declining in the North Sea. Production is declining in the US though we do have some untapped reserves left.

The simple fact is there IS no alternative for oil. Oil consumption for non-fuel usage is pretty high. Just about all the paint, plastic, and many synthetic fabrics come from oil. At some point old landfills will become plastic mines, I suppose. The point is that there is no alternative for the huge energy requirements we have except for nuclear.

Currently 56% of our domestic energy production is from coal. As the coal runs out, we are going to need a substitute. We can't dam up rivers without killing them. We cant strip mine forests without killing them. The only viable long-term solution is nuclear electric. As much as people want it not to be so, it is staring them right in the face. The French and the Japanese got it. Probably because they have a lot of scientists and engineers in government. We only have professional candidates in government. France had a slogan for their nuclear electric program ... No Oil, No Coal, No Choice. We will be in that same boat.

[stuart]

I think your nuclear argument is sound but we sure need to learn how to deal with the waste a bit more effectively. Still, it does not solve the problem in oil use beyond energy, i.e. plastics and agriculture etc..

One thing Carter did do right re: this topic was commission a large study on organic vs. industrial farming. The research could determine no yield benefit from industrial farming (lots of pesticides and petrochemical fertilizer). Also said the research was inconclusive but absolutely meritted more study. Reagan had the study shredded when he took office. Reagan was massively funded by aggro business both in his gubernatorial and presidential campaigns.

[dana]

To this I can only respond with - 1) you're over simplifying in regard to creating a stronger bond - arguing well is only one piece of the pie.

1) Uhm, no- I was refuting your claim that better disagreement creates a stronger bond.

If those same disagreements are handled well, the love grows stronger.

2) fucking A, keep it real, at least in the realm of believability at a bare minimum "midgets, childhood trauma"???????

2) Hypothetical situations are often blatantly over-emphasized to assist in understanding the underlying principals. So much for adding humor to the mix. Must I dig out my old psychology books, talk to my psychiatrist friend, or get one of Dr. Phil's books to give you an example you can accept? Maybe you should 'get real'. Attacking an example that is quite obviously humor is the mark of a poor debater.

3) fine I might be projecting. That's why I used the key phrase "most likely" Is there some other reason why you think most relationships fail if not the antagonism and petty arguments that never get dealt with?

3) People are different. By stating that relationships fail due to unresolved issues is painting a far too rosey picture of the world. The inverse would state 'most relationships will succeed if disagreements and issues are dealt with correctly'. I fully disagree with this one. Lust, and the first feelings of love happen in any relationship. But some people 'grow out' of a love. Not from any unresolved issues, but simply because not every two people are meant to spend their lives toghether.

4) And that last bit you're totally losing me on. If you got along so well, why did you break up?

4) The essential 'spark' left. We ceased to have the strong intimate and emotional bond that is required for the long hual. Again, do you love your siblings? Your parents? Your best friend? Are you intimate with everyone you love? No. We are very close friends now and share in most everything- but we aren't going to be a couple. Unresolved issues and past/present disagreements have nothing to do with it.

I wonder if anyone else is struck with the irony that a thread which ostensibly started out as some sort of search for an answer to the seemingly endless question of resolving conflict with someone you love, has ended as a fairly useless piss-fest?

I quit. If your ego desires a victory - you win. (Spend it well.)

[Rob the Wop]

I wonder if anyone else is struck with the irony that a thread which ostensibly started out as some sort of search for an answer to the seemingly endless question of resolving conflict with someone you love, has ended as a fairly useless piss-fest?

I quit. If your ego desires a victory - you win. (Spend it well.)

Not really, I get the feeling that this thread was created to justify your own personal excuse for a bad relationship. Hence, the bitter agruement against anyone claiming that love and disagreements are two seperate issues.

If you were truely seeking enlightenment, you would have attempted to see other viewpoints- rather than jumping on anyone with a difference of opinion on the topic.

You have now entered the Eplaya, there are those here that use logic and reasoning. Sorry if this ruined your day.

[Rob the Wop]

Oops, my bad. Change the above to say your contributions to the thread. The thread was created by someone actually interested.

[blyslv]

Not really, I get the feeling that this thread was created to justify your own personal excuse for a bad relationship. .

Actually I created this thread to examine the nature of on-line disagreements. My choice of title was perhaps unfortunate, but I was operating under the assumption that we all want to "love" each other, that we all come to this forum with good faith and a desire to connect, make friends, share and maybe learn something. If that is true, does that mean that we all have to sacherrine and agreable and stuff? I do not come here seeking agreement or mindless "me-too-ism."

Instead it becasme a forum to discuss other things. That it has taken such a turn is something I find delightful.

[geekster]

Well, the ability to disagree gracefully is sometimes more an art than a science. It also greatly depends on the personalities involved. I happen to know someone that thinks any time someone disagrees with her, they are calling her stupid or invalidating her reality and she gets very angry and can barely control her temper. And I am talking even about very minor disagreement. To top this off, she was on a champion debate team in college and is a journalist. So she works with disagreement all the time, takes sport in disagreement, but can not actually stand disagreement in any way if she is personally invested in one side. There is no way to gracefully disagree with that person, you simply walk your way on the eggshells to the nearest exit and try to distract her with some shiny object or something. That person is hard to love ... but I try.

Of COURSE we don't need to agree. I find agreeing just for the sake of it to be somewhat patronizing. Love means being willing to accept the different opinions if we are talking about on-line stuff. Matters of physics can be settled with yes/no answers. Matters of feelings and opinions often have no "right" or "wrong". They are often just different.

Disagreement is also how we learn things sometimes. I allude to or possibly clearly state a position, someone informs me that they have a different position and explains why. I might not have had the information they had when I was deciding on my position and vice-versa. As we exchange information, we may find that we BOTH end up in a slightly different place. We both have the benefit of the other's knowlege base and can make a more informed decision. Mind you, I am not one to take someone's information as gospel without doing a little checking first.

So, no, love does not mean never disagreeing. It can mean being able to disagree and exchange ideas without malice. Being curious as to why the other person disagrees and wanting them to share their thoughts with you is a loving thing to do. Being able to keep your positions after you have exchanged information without feeling chastized is a nice warm safe place to be too.

Love is about safety. Actually, if you love someone you should feel safer exposing your core, making yourself vulnerable, so you might actually feel more safe disagreeing with someone you love than someone you don't. If you aren't safe then maybe it isn't really love you feel. Maybe it is a strong DESIRE for love or maybe it is infatuation ... but love to me means being able to turn your back to her while she is in the kitchen with a very sharp object in her hand while you discuss the debates.

[theCryptofishist]

At some point old landfills will become plastic mines, I suppose.

I'm glad someone else has noticed this. (Although, I personally would love to know what landfill is like after it becomes sediementary rock. Or even metamorphic.)

[theCryptofishist]

I think your nuclear argument is sound but we sure need to learn how to deal with the waste a bit more effectively.

Right here, Stuart.

I'd be interested in knowing more about the CArter Study. I think the whole "Green Revolution" thing will turn out to be a trap, GMOs too.

[geekster]

Ohh! Cool question. My guess would be oil shale if there is enough clay.

[stuart]

from what I recall of the study (maybe I'll do some google looking) it basically compared the yields of farms that used lots of petrochemicals to ones that were 'organic'. Found that the non-organic output was slightly higher but when you factored in the energy input was way lower. As I said before, their primary conclusion was 'holy shit! we need to look at this more extensively.'

[geekster]

Yeah, trouble is that things are rearely as simple as they seem on the surface. Organic farming tends to be more human labor intensive. on a large commercial scale, it can be prohibitive. I planted, oh, about a quarter acre of potatos several years ago. There weren't any others for miles around as far as I know but the potato beetles found mine, bigtime. I spent an hour or two every single day picking potato beetles (forget for the moment that I was dropping them into a can of gasoline after I picked them off) of those plants. If I missed a day or two, the population would explode.

Everyone wants people to make a "living wage". Fine. But nobody wants to pay the price for products produced by people making a living wage. Large scale organic farming generall requires more human labor which is the most expensive raw material used in farming. The bottom line is that it makes food more expensive and that hurts the people that can least afford it the most. Those who pay the largest percentage of their income on food bear an unfair portion of the burden. So ... that is why the system is the way it is. You can buy organic products, but they are expensive. This means that the people that can most afford to pay that higher price buy it. The bottom line is supply and demand. If people that can afford to buy organic do buy organic, then more farmland might be put into organic production while conventional production remains to produce lower cost foods that need them.

[geekster]

produce lower cost foods for people that need them. Damed lack of edit!

[theCryptofishist]

Meanwhile lots of highly productive California farmland is taken out of production for housing tracts and silly valley industrial parks. Of course, this farmland would need water. I'm aware of the issues of the intensity of the labor of organics. It's a tricky balance. But if you've read the essay on Potatoes in The Botany of Desire and you get to the part about GMO potatoes with built in pesticides only being pest resistant for 30 years, it might make you wonder. Specifically, it made me wonder if with an 30% increased crop yeild on acrage post green revolution and the Malthian leap in population that that generation could bring, what kind of poisens are we going to have to put into the environment and ourselves in order to feed those extra people?

[stuart]

and there is the rub.

short term economic gain vs long term sustainability

it would not be such a global problem if local subsistance farmers weren't continually booted off of their land

[theCryptofishist]

Oh dear god, no. And there you get to the lending practices of the world bank which lead to cash crops which lead to . . . One reason to buy shade grown, fair trade coffee. And if you were Incan and grew 100 different types of potatoes knowing that on average only 80 would prosper in an given year. . .

I'm not saying it's easy. I'm saying we should be really careful of the techno fix. Because it may just postpone and complicate the problem.

And that, dear friends, is the main reason I'd go vegitarian, If I weren't so darn lazy.

[stuart]

one of the most galling experiences I have had, repeatedly, is a veggie telling me how innefficient, in terms of primary production, raising cattle is.


All while smoking a cigarette.

[theCryptofishist]

Ah, drowning his taste buds so he wouldn't ahve to admit to the horrors of tofu. . .


(Okay, there are multiple opinions on tofu. )

[geekster]

I think there are bigger fish to fry. Not that population growth isn't important, but it is slowing and has actually reversed in many areas of the world.

In the very long term, it doesn't matter because the Earth is doomed. From now on out the sun only gets bigger and hotter. As the core of the Earth cools, volcanism will stop and the oceans will outgass into space.

In the "medium" term, there will be another mass extinction from a super volcano or a big ass rock from outer space.

In the shorter term we have problems like hormones from birth control products and antibiotics getting through waste treatment plants and into the water. This means that we are seeing sexually deformed fauna and bacteria are becoming antibiotic resistant in the wild, not just in hospitals. We had a window of about 50 years where our drugs could kill before the bugs could kill us but that is closing. HIV is just blasting Africa and is a great potential threat to places like India and China.

Sure, the answer is population control but how do you do that? Education and economic development seem to help in that respect. As a country develops and become better educated, their birth rate seems to drop. In the meantime, disease will probably manage that for us as antibiotics become ineffective.

[geekster]

and there is the rub.

short term economic gain vs long term sustainability

it would not be such a global problem if local subsistance farmers weren't continually booted off of their land

They are booted off their land because they are inefficient and can not compete. It costs more to grow their crops than to buy them at the market in small quantities. It takes all their labor to subsist and they have no time left for a job to pay the property taxes and utilities. They can take products to market but will get less for them that it cost to produce them. They get booted off their land because economically subsistance farming is a dumb idea even if it is quaint. Logically it is dumb even if emotionally it is satisfying.

You want to keep one alive? Then YOU subsidise him. Buy his crops for some inflated price, take them to market and sell them for a loss and you take the hit.

[geekster]

10 subsistance farmers ... 10 tractors, 10 plows, 10 harrows, 10 harvesters, 10 storage bins, 10 houses, 10 cars, 10 families .... very inefficient. Corporate farm buys them out ... adds all the land together ... 1 tractor, 1 plow, 1 harrow, 1 harvester, 1 storge bin, no house, no cars, no families ... handling 10 times the land. More efficient. Less overhead.

[stuart]

that's not very libertarian of you geekster. None of those folks deserve to have the govt come in and boot them.

your analogy is also very flawed. Community subsistance farmers share all of those items in a co-op format, if they even need them. And what you are also missing is that idea of the 10 familes and their 10 homes. When you boot them, where do they go? Where do they live?

As far as subsidising them goes, we heavily subsidise agro business through our taxes already. A system seems very innefficient if it is not distributing it's output evenly. A select group of corporate elites with multiple vacation homes at one end and a few hundred homeless at the other does not seem very efficient to me at all.

[geekster]

It is very libertarian of me. A farm should be treated no differently than any other business. If you decide to be a sole proprietor auto mechanic and can't make your tax payments, you loose your business. I think you have an emotional attachment to farming or farmers and want them to not have to play by the same rules as every other business in the country.

[geekster]

oh, ask a New England fisherman or a small North Carolina textile mill owner or a California family sawmill owner if a subsistance farmer should get special treatment.

[stuart]

I'm not asking for special treatment.

As a libertarian, do you not find it yucky when third world subsistence farmers who are doing just fine w/o subsidy get booted from their land when the government excersises eminent domain in order to put up a U.S. taxpayer subsidised auto parts plant?

Do you not find it yucky that agro business in this country is massively subsidized?