Dankverbot

aben wrote:

Rabarbara wrote:

aben wrote:

Rabarbara wrote:

aben wrote:mislin, žene se nisu puno preminile od unda, muški također.  žene su još uvika jednako nestabilne. danas kad ti žena počme histerizirati, jednostavno je odjebeš i kroj. nišće loše joj se radi toga ne će dogoditi. a unda kad je to znočilo vjerojatnu propast i smrt?

muškima je brak puno znoči, znoči i dun danas, jer osigurava seks moru beta orbitera, ali ženami je to bi, za rozliku od danas, downright opstanak.

Jesu, ali rijetki.

Kod većine još uvijek caruje pećinski nagon.

ča jesu retki?

pećinski nagon, misliš na - nagon?

Jesu.
Ne, nego na pećinski nagon. 

ča jesu?


ot pećinski nagon, to je neki zastarjeli nagon, je li?

Vidi se utjecaj naše Mate na ovoj temi, sav si se pretvorio u pitanja i ne odustaješ dok ne dobiješ odgovor koji ti paše. 

Shvati to kako ti najviše odgovara.

 Laku noć.

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Noor wrote:
a, ok...znaci tvoja znanstvena istrazivanja su dosla do istih rezultata kao i istrazivanje autorice teksta koji si naveo...
well done job :)

thx

nije mi jasno što si ti htio dokazati sa tom tvojom tiradom. jel zbog toga jer ti je narcisoidni ego povrijeđen ili imaš neki drugi razlog?

kojon tiradon?

tiradon kopi pejstova iz pizde materine. sofista  uvijek ostaje sofista još ako je sociopata onda je razgovor nemoguć.

aha, pa pomalo, ča jo znun na ča misliš.

hoti sun pokozati kako ljudi često imaju miskoncepcije o realnosti iz povijesti. na neka doktorica koju je štriga citirala, okoristila se jednon takovon miskoncepcijon (rana udaja) ne bi li poentirala isto ideološki.

ali, stvori ne gredu tako. jedno istraživanje na širen šibenskon području, a ne morin ti reći ki ga je prove jer se više ne sićun- moro bi nojti index, pokaživo točno ono ča sun napiso u prvoj reakciji, prosjek udaje in je bi 24 godine. spekuliro se da je to tako radi ekonomskih razlogov, momci i cure bi se obećali jedno drugome, a unda bi un pošo deset godin na brod ili sl.

Cows absolved of causing global warming with nitrous oxide
Livestock could actually be good for the environment according to a new study that found grazing cows or sheep can cut emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas.

In the past environmentalists, from Lord Stern to Sir Paul McCartney, have urged people to stop eating meat because the methane produced by cattle causes global warming.

Cow farts collected in plastic tank for global warming study
Scientists are examining cow farts and burps in a novel bid to combat global warming.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2274995/Cow-farts-collected-in-plastic-tank-for-global-warming-study.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7564682/Cows-absolved-of-causing-global-warming-with-nitrous-oxide.html

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

thx

nije mi jasno što si ti htio dokazati sa tom tvojom tiradom. jel zbog toga jer ti je narcisoidni ego povrijeđen ili imaš neki drugi razlog?

kojon tiradon?

tiradon kopi pejstova iz pizde materine. sofista  uvijek ostaje sofista još ako je sociopata onda je razgovor nemoguć.

aha, pa pomalo, ča jo znun na ča misliš.

hoti sun pokozati kako ljudi često imaju miskoncepcije o realnosti iz povijesti. na neka doktorica koju je štriga citirala, okoristila se jednon takovon miskoncepcijon (rana udaja) ne bi li poentirala isto ideološki.

ali, stvori ne gredu tako. jedno istraživanje na širen šibenskon području, a ne morin ti reći ki ga je prove jer se više ne sićun- moro bi nojti index, pokaživo točno ono ča sun napiso u prvoj reakciji, prosjek udaje in je bi 24 godine.  spekuliro se da je to tako radi ekonomskih razlogov, momci i cure bi se obećali jedno drugome, a unda bi un pošo deset godin na brod ili sl.

zoč si hoti pokazati? zoč ta potriba da moroš pokazati?

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

nije mi jasno što si ti htio dokazati sa tom tvojom tiradom. jel zbog toga jer ti je narcisoidni ego povrijeđen ili imaš neki drugi razlog?

kojon tiradon?

tiradon kopi pejstova iz pizde materine. sofista  uvijek ostaje sofista još ako je sociopata onda je razgovor nemoguć.

aha, pa pomalo, ča jo znun na ča misliš.

hoti sun pokozati kako ljudi često imaju miskoncepcije o realnosti iz povijesti. na neka doktorica koju je štriga citirala, okoristila se jednon takovon miskoncepcijon (rana udaja) ne bi li poentirala isto ideološki.

ali, stvori ne gredu tako. jedno istraživanje na širen šibenskon području, a ne morin ti reći ki ga je prove jer se više ne sićun- moro bi nojti index, pokaživo točno ono ča sun napiso u prvoj reakciji, prosjek udaje in je bi 24 godine.  spekuliro se da je to tako radi ekonomskih razlogov, momci i cure bi se obećali jedno drugome, a unda bi un pošo deset godin na brod ili sl.

zoč si hoti pokazati? zoč ta potriba da moroš pokazati?

a, volin povijest, i
volin aprioristiku.

na području današnje USA bilo je više od 50 milijuna bizona koje su ekološki osvješteni evropljani tj. amerikanci istrijebili jer su bizoni prdili metan za popizdit puno.

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

kojon tiradon?

tiradon kopi pejstova iz pizde materine. sofista  uvijek ostaje sofista još ako je sociopata onda je razgovor nemoguć.

aha, pa pomalo, ča jo znun na ča misliš.

hoti sun pokozati kako ljudi često imaju miskoncepcije o realnosti iz povijesti. na neka doktorica koju je štriga citirala, okoristila se jednon takovon miskoncepcijon (rana udaja) ne bi li poentirala isto ideološki.

ali, stvori ne gredu tako. jedno istraživanje na širen šibenskon području, a ne morin ti reći ki ga je prove jer se više ne sićun- moro bi nojti index, pokaživo točno ono ča sun napiso u prvoj reakciji, prosjek udaje in je bi 24 godine.  spekuliro se da je to tako radi ekonomskih razlogov, momci i cure bi se obećali jedno drugome, a unda bi un pošo deset godin na brod ili sl.

zoč si hoti pokazati? zoč ta potriba da moroš pokazati?

a, volin povijest, i
volin aprioristiku.

ali zoč? zoč ti moroš urbi et orbi non stop dokazivati da si joko apriori pametan više bi bilo podmazano pakostan kako da se apriori rodi o životu i smrti?

?

VEGAN CONSPIRACY: THE VEGAN AGENDA AND COWSPIRACY

“Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret” was a documentary produced by two Californians, Kip Anderson, and Keegan Kuhn. The theme behind Cowspiracy is that the beef industry is the most environmentally destructive in the world, compared to other sectors of the economy such as Transport and Household Electricity Costs. Everything from deforestation and drought to murder and manipulation is all laid at the hooves of the beef industry.

The documentary is laden with statistics and facts. Livestock are to blame for over 51% of all Greenhouse Gas emissions, 90% of deforestation of the Amazon and 1,100 activists have been killed over land disputes in Brazil. It also highlights the power that the meat industry has to silence environmental groups. It shows that it takes up to 660 gallons of water to produce one beef burger. The film ends on a positive note singing the praises of veganism, citing both health and environmental benefits.

There is one pitfall about the movie Cowspiracy. Practically all its facts and data are known to be wrong by all people who are knowledgeable about science and statistics. One of the main statistics cited in “Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret” is that 51% of all Greenhouse Gas Emissions (“GHE”) come as a direct result of livestock gas emission. This statistic comes from a single non-peer reviewed report. And the report itself has numerous statistical errors. There are numerous more reliable studies which have been done and show that the number is closer to 15%. This is still a large number which needs to be investigated. But it appears that the two producers simply chose the less accurate study which helped their cause. It is ironic given the accusations in the movie that NGO’s are hiding the science that they prefer to use a study from an NGO instead of a reputable scientific journal. The Union of Concerned Scientists who are concerned about creating a safer and better world using sound science heavily criticized the statistic which was used. Most independent scientific groups still advise focusing on the primary concern, fossil fuels. Scientists are absent throughout the whole movie, with a significant amount of “facts” and “statistics” attributed to farmers, executives, authors, and environmentalists.

The Conspiracy behind Cowspiracy is that all the NGO’s are just phonies who are not truly battling for the environment and are really just sell outs to the Mega Corporations. The implication from Cowspiracy is that these environmental organizations make money from the Beef industry. This Conspiracy within Cowspiracy is groundless and unfounded. These groups have actually worked for years to prevent pollution in the livestock industry, and have actively campaigned and produced reports and findings in the industry. This was NOT presented in Cowspiracy. The main argument in Cowspiracy was that NGO’s did not do enough to bring awareness to the issue of Green House Gas Emissions produced by livestock on the basis that Livestock Gas emission accounted for 51%. They should not have “wasted” so much time on fossil fuels. However, since the original statistic is inaccurate so is the extrapolation.

Cowspiracy does well to generate awareness as to the effect of livestock breeding on climate change. However, it goes down the wrong path. The problem is not beef eating. The problem is the Beef Industry system of production and distribution. The film does not cover sustainable farming methods which have been used for thousands of years but indicates that we should all turn vegan. It almost seems to point the finger at the bovines, which waste so much water and produce so much Methane. It never explores how what they are fed by us, the two footers, increase the Methane they produce, and how concentrating them in a small area and pumping them full of antibiotics, chemicals and hormones might not be the most environmentally protective. There is research to suggest that well-managed cattle in Grassland environments actually lower the level of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, taking these gasses from the atmosphere and storing them in the soil. According to IPCC, grasslands are more efficient at storing carbon than tropical rain forests. Cowspiracy essentially chose unsubstantiated statistics, presented the worst aspects of the beef industry, extrapolated this to all meat eaters (including the indigenous peoples), and urged everyone to go vegan as the only choice to save the planet.

Vegan Elitism

Possibly the most insidious elements of Cowspiracy is that Vegans are somehow elites and that ”it’s not possible to be a meat-eating environmentalist”. This is of course completely false. Many of the hardcore frontline environmentalists stem from Brazil and poorer South American Countries, fighting (and sometimes dying) for the environment long before rich white people decided to watch a movie and commit to a lifestyle of buying expensive vegan products. Many of these people cannot afford the vegan way of life. This exclusive element also ignores the cultural importance of hunting for many indigenous societies. While the current system of rearing and distributing beef cannot go on, it is important to use appropriate terminology and not to tar everyone with the same brush. The problem is specifically the way beef is produced in the U.S.

Watch the Cowspiracy Documentary and decide for yourself…






To sum up Cowspiracy, it did well to generate awareness for Animal cruelty, particularly by videoing the slaughter of the cow and the duck. It also did well to create awareness of the environmental impact of fossil fuels. But it went too far, and there is nothing to suggest that beef cannot be sustainably raised in small farms, as has been the case historically. The figures they cite are so misleading as to be completely false. They focus too much on NGO’s who are not hand in hand with the Mega Corporations as suggested, and it also implies that scientists are covering up the effect of the beef industry on climate change, which is not the case given a significant amount of accurate scientific data documenting its effects.

https://www.conspiracies.net/vegan-conspiracy-cowspiracy-vegan-agenda/#watch-cowspiracy

ludilo i agenda multikorporacija se nastavlja i pojačava ovo već prešlo u sferu psihijatrije


LET THEM EAT...SEAWEED
Researchers: New Diet to Stop Cow Farts ‘Will Fight Climate Change’






A Massachusetts-based aquaculture company is trying to fight climate change by mass producing a type of seaweed that, if fed to cows, will make them fart and burp less. The theory that switching the diet of livestock to seaweed can cut down on gas emissions has already gotten some support from researchers at University of California, Davis, who say the methane from cows’ burps makes up 25 percent of methane emissions in the U.S.

But the aquaculture company, Australis Aquaculture, is now seeking to use those scientific findings to make seaweed livestock feed the norm. The company, which is currently conducting research at facilities in Vietnam and Portugal, hopes to be producing seaweed on a commercial scale within the next two years to make “Greener Grazing” go mainstream. “If you could feed all the cows this seaweed, it would be the equivalent of taking all these cars off the road,” Josh Goldman, the company’s CEO, told the Associated Press.



The “Green Grazing” effort has reportedly already gotten the attention of the World Bank, where experts say seaweed could substantially help developing nations.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/researchers-new-diet-to-stop-cow-farts-will-fight-climate-change?ref=home

‘Why do you keep talking about fossil fuels? Don’t you know that animal agriculture is the biggest cause of global warming? Why don’t you campaign on that? Watch Cowspiracy!’

If you’ve posted anything online about fossil fuels and climate change lately, the chances are you’ve seen a response like this. Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret may have started as a crowdfunded documentary by US filmmakers Kip Andersen and Keegan Kuhn but following a year of online success a new version of the film – executive produced by Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio – has now been launched on Netflix. The film follows Andersen’s investigation into the climate impact of animal agriculture, and his attempts to get a series of large US environmental NGOs to speak to him about it. It’s a compellingly told story, as most of the green groups seem reluctant to answer his questions or to justify their focus on fossil fuels rather than livestock emissions.

The film has built a sizable and vocal following, as evidenced by the critical Cowspiracy-inspired comments that frequently pop up on articles about climate change, bemoaning the lack of coverage of the climate impact of animal agriculture. In Paris for the climate talks in December, there was no escape either. I spotted the headline statistic from the documentary – ‘animal agriculture is responsible for 51 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions’ – emblazoned on at least one placard or banner at most of the protests I attended in Paris. Kip Andersen himself even turned up at the anti-oil protest outside the Louvre, with a film camera and the 51 per cent figure printed on his shirt, presumably to denounce such fossil-fuel-bashing antics as a waste of time compared to stopping the livestock industry.



There’s only one problem with this eye-grabbing stat: it’s a load of manure. Emissions from livestock agriculture – including the methane from animals’ digestive systems, deforestation, land use change and energy use – make up around 15 per cent of global emissions, not 51 per cent. I’ve been vegan for 14 years and have been asked to justify my dietary weirdness at more friend and family meals than I can count, so believe me – I’ve looked into it. If meat and dairy really were the biggest cause of global climate change I’d be trumpeting that statistic myself every chance I got.

https://newint.org/blog/2016/02/10/cowspiracy-stampeding-in-the-wrong-direction

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

tiradon kopi pejstova iz pizde materine. sofista  uvijek ostaje sofista još ako je sociopata onda je razgovor nemoguć.

aha, pa pomalo, ča jo znun na ča misliš.

hoti sun pokozati kako ljudi često imaju miskoncepcije o realnosti iz povijesti. na neka doktorica koju je štriga citirala, okoristila se jednon takovon miskoncepcijon (rana udaja) ne bi li poentirala isto ideološki.

ali, stvori ne gredu tako. jedno istraživanje na širen šibenskon području, a ne morin ti reći ki ga je prove jer se više ne sićun- moro bi nojti index, pokaživo točno ono ča sun napiso u prvoj reakciji, prosjek udaje in je bi 24 godine.  spekuliro se da je to tako radi ekonomskih razlogov, momci i cure bi se obećali jedno drugome, a unda bi un pošo deset godin na brod ili sl.

zoč si hoti pokazati? zoč ta potriba da moroš pokazati?

a, volin povijest, i
volin aprioristiku.

ali zoč? zoč ti moroš urbi et orbi non stop dokazivati da si joko apriori pametan više bi bilo podmazano pakostan kako da se apriori rodi o životu i smrti?

?

a čuješ, citat je bi činjenično netočan, da bi na kraju poentiro ideološki slipo:
"Stoga je, smatram, svako pozivanje na tradiciju unaprijed izgubljen argument."


i unda ka joj jo rečin da je kupila diplomu, to je pakosno?
well, i dont give a fuck, ako i je.


to dokazivanje pameti, ovo je forum gnječo, ča biš ti da jo propustin postove di je nešto krivo da se ne ističen, da buden samozatajan? ne razumin, ča oćeš?

Nasilje u bilo kojem obliku najoštrije osuđujem :)

mativka wrote:Nasilje u bilo kojem obliku najoštrije osuđujem :)

to je nesporno.. posebno kad je riječ o fizičkom nasilju.. no o tome nije riječ u ovoj raspravi

metilda wrote:

mativka wrote:Nasilje u bilo kojem obliku najoštrije osuđujem :)

to je nesporno.. posebno kad je riječ o fizičkom nasilju.. no o tome nije riječ u ovoj raspravi

Kako nije?!
Rana udaja je nasilje :)

mativka wrote:

metilda wrote:

mativka wrote:Nasilje u bilo kojem obliku najoštrije osuđujem :)

to je nesporno.. posebno kad je riječ o fizičkom nasilju.. no o tome nije riječ u ovoj raspravi

Kako nije?!
Rana udaja je nasilje :)

svejedno to nije bila tema

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:

Gnječ wrote:

aben wrote:




aha, pa pomalo, ča jo znun na ča misliš.

hoti sun pokozati kako ljudi često imaju miskoncepcije o realnosti iz povijesti. na neka doktorica koju je štriga citirala, okoristila se jednon takovon miskoncepcijon (rana udaja) ne bi li poentirala isto ideološki.

ali, stvori ne gredu tako. jedno istraživanje na širen šibenskon području, a ne morin ti reći ki ga je prove jer se više ne sićun- moro bi nojti index, pokaživo točno ono ča sun napiso u prvoj reakciji, prosjek udaje in je bi 24 godine.  spekuliro se da je to tako radi ekonomskih razlogov, momci i cure bi se obećali jedno drugome, a unda bi un pošo deset godin na brod ili sl.

zoč si hoti pokazati? zoč ta potriba da moroš pokazati?

a, volin povijest, i
volin aprioristiku.

ali zoč? zoč ti moroš urbi et orbi non stop dokazivati da si joko apriori pametan više bi bilo podmazano pakostan kako da se apriori rodi o životu i smrti?

?

a čuješ, citat je bi činjenično netočan, da bi na kraju poentiro ideološki slipo:
"[size=36]Stoga je, smatram,[/size][size=36] svako pozivanje na tradiciju[/size][size=36] unaprijed izgubljen argument."[/size]


[size=36]i unda ka joj jo rečin da je kupila diplomu, to je pakosno?[/size]
[size=36]well, i dont give a fuck, ako i je.[/size]


[size=36]to dokazivanje pameti, ovo je forum gnječo, ča biš ti da jo propustin postove di je nešto krivo da se ne ističen, da buden samozatajan? ne razumin, ča oćeš?[/size]

Hajde da ti posvetim koju sekundicu paznje. Poanta tih tvojih citata i prigovora mi izmice, priznajem. Pogledala sam clanak kojeg si naveo i vise vidim slicnosti s citatom " one koja je kupila diplomu", nego li tvojeg navodnog protuargumenta. :D Na tvoje vidjenje zena i obiteljskog zivota, necu se osvrtati. Nije mi nimalo relevantno, a ni pretjerano realisticno.

metilda wrote:

mativka wrote:

metilda wrote:

mativka wrote:Nasilje u bilo kojem obliku najoštrije osuđujem :)

to je nesporno.. posebno kad je riječ o fizičkom nasilju.. no o tome nije riječ u ovoj raspravi

Kako nije?!
Rana udaja je nasilje :)

svejedno to nije bila tema

Dobro :)

mativka wrote:

metilda wrote:

mativka wrote:Nasilje u bilo kojem obliku najoštrije osuđujem :)

to je nesporno.. posebno kad je riječ o fizičkom nasilju.. no o tome nije riječ u ovoj raspravi

Kako nije?!
Rana udaja je nasilje :)

Aben se osovio na nejake nogice, a Metildica mu pridrzava skute, nakon sto je u jednom citatu utvrdjeno da je tradicionalna slika obiteljskog zivota koju pronosi svecenstvo i Markica prije uvezeno iz protestanske 'Merike i zazivjelo u vrijeme socijalizma, nego sto je to slucaj iz povijesti Hrvata katolika. :p

1/2 of the solution is identifying the problem

the other half is violence :^^

mativka wrote:

metilda wrote:

mativka wrote:

metilda wrote:

mativka wrote:Nasilje u bilo kojem obliku najoštrije osuđujem :)

to je nesporno.. posebno kad je riječ o fizičkom nasilju.. no o tome nije riječ u ovoj raspravi

Kako nije?!
Rana udaja je nasilje :)

svejedno to nije bila tema

Dobro :)

činjenica je da imam puno posla i ne mogu ulaziti u raspravu , a sad ti je violator rekla da je tema bila isključivo politička

Gnječ wrote:

kic wrote:
http://www.planet-science.com/categories/over-11s/natural-world/2012/05/did-dinosaurs-fart-their-way-to-extinction.aspx

haha koja tema joj

https://www.thedailybeast.com/dinosaurs-had-a-lot-of-flatulence-but-did-not-gas-themselves-to-extinction?ref=scroll

eto sad razmisli tko financira tu lažnu priču o kravama.

nije conspiracy nego cowspiracy

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

80% of antibiotic sold in the US are for livestock.

ajajaj