Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

plotthickens

Core Member
  • Content count

    43,897
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About plotthickens

  • Rank
    Core Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTj
  • Global 5/SLOAN
    RLOEI

Converted

  • Homepage
    https://intjforum.com/topic/74987-and-the-plot-thickens-ii/
  • Biography
    I wear a size 40 shoe.
  • Location
    Bay Area, California
  • Occupation
    Chatelaine
  • Gender
  • Personal Text
    Don't stick beans up your nose.

Recent Profile Visitors

74,354 profile views
  1. My morning bitchi-o's are floated in Jack. I don't care about your "crowd" or your "camp" or whatever affiliation you want to claim. All ya'all need to stop patronizing us while at the same time elbowing your way into every conversation.
  2. Air quotes, paternalistic and passive-aggressive comments, and having to have the last word in everything... pretty much par for the course from your "crowd". It's as if ya'all think that everyone who's not a parent should be treated as a child. No wonder it puts everyone's teeth on edge. I hope ya'all have more approaches than holier-than-thou know-it-all and beseiged sacrificing parent. Neither is becoming; you can do better.
  3. This is true. By the way, have you met our dogs? We have pictures... hold on, let me show you... they are absolutely the CUTEST DOGS IN THE.... ...... added to this post 13 minutes later: No. It's pretty easy to conceive. It's difficult as fuck, especially today, to find a way for active hets to legally, effectively, and cheaply avoid conceiving. Silence is easier than to get the BARRAGE OF BABY RABIES that comes every time this comes up. Parents seem to want to drown out any Childfree ideas by both volume AND quantity. I don't like proselytizing at all, so I'll just let the breeders coo to themselves and avoid the otherwise-inevitable Breeder Bingoism, such as has been shown repeatedly in this thread. Hello, Ma'am, have you found Jesus? He will bring Love and Forgiveness and Light into your life! Oh my goodness, why don't you want babies? What's wrong with you? They just make you feel so much love! My two cents: permanent sterilization is the best aphrodisiac ever. No worries, no more expense, and fluid bonding means anywhere anytime. Make a lot of noise going around a hiking trail turn, folks.
  4. Thank you, I missed that in the OP. Makes sense. Frankly, a lot of childfree people are defensive because of the constant bombardment. Just... freakin'... constant.
  5. And here we go. "I'm childfree, anyone else?" thread is suddenly deluged by parents/their champions trumpeting having children. Please, folks, chill. Just a little. It's annoying to be deluged by "You're wrong, we're so happy, wheeee, breeeeeeeeeed!" every time this subject comes up. People who want kids are fine. The good parents are awesome. The people who want to invalidate your freely-made choices because of their freely-made choices... ugh. Those people deserve to have their hypocritical and bad behavior pointed out, though they frequently react with the shrillest, loudest, highest of high dudgeon.
  6. I'm glad for you and your family. The same is not true for so, so, so many other parents and children. In fact rigorous surveys show that childfree people are happier than parents: children do not increase one's happiness, and may in fact reduce it. http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Wish-Id-Never-Had-Children/219469 http://www.childfree.net/potpourri_annlanders.html
  7. Me. The phrase you want is "Childfree by choice" or just "childfree". There are nine million online spaces for us, from subreddits to complete dedicated forums. Hell, there are five meetup groups near me that do 2-6 outings a month: Childfree Couples, Childfree Professionals, Childfree Wives, Childfree Single Women, Childfree Dating Group. And I'd suggest you check out Vhemt. They make some DAMN GOOD POINTS, in the same vein as you just did. http://vhemt.org/ It's the same knee-jerk response that stubborn, un-examined carnivores give to a vegetarian. As if our choice to be childfree/veggie was a criticism of someone else's choice? And they now need to verbally fight back? Sooooo weird. I've been called all manner of things, had my person, femininity, womanhood, reproductive tract, etc etc etc questioned... UGH. It happens so often, us childfree folks even have our own bingo cards.
  8. Interrogation/attack is never the only possible response.
  9. Delusions of external locii of control are difficult to dispel OR exist alongside. Blech. Sometimes it's easier to baby them; sometimes it's more productive to confront them or even attempt to raise them out of their misery. Treat each situation individually and make your choices. You don't need to be friends with everyone.
  10. Here on INTJf subjects up for discussion are nit-picked. Usually, to death. This is why I don't post much anymore, it seems like your OP has to have ninety-million qualifiers, be utterly complete, have all data, be a perfectly edited dossier.... or certain posters will find any opening and start stabbing it with their beaks. Nit-pickers. They're not finding problems with your solution, they're just doing their own thing... it's not about you, it's their need to spew. For the record, I think you did the right thing. Let the authorities and the laws do their due diligence, just like you did yours.
  11. If you and 3,999 of your closest friends agree to become test subjects, hire a team of doctors, and start up a double-blind study with controls and dosage monitoring and all the bells and whistles, and write up all the grants... it won't happen. No ethics committee will ever approve a study that asks humans to ingest something that is being studied as a poison. You're demanding proof that doesn't and cannot ever exist. Even when every other study on every other situation points to these poisons being detrimental to life, they haven't been proven to be detrimental to humans, so you're right, there is no proof. That might make your stance technically correct, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ...... added to this post 13 minutes later: Storm, sorry, I forgot to thank you for the remainder of your original, excellent post. Quite well-written. Let's define terms. "Organic" and "Sustainable" are not interchangeable. It is entirely possible for a USDA certified Organic farm to be completely unsustainable (say, raising microgreens in heated greenhouses on imported mushroom compost). It's also common for Sustainable farming systems to not be able to be certified USDA Organic (such as using uncertified hay from its own fields to feed a herd over winter). Sustainability means that a farming process does not depend upon outside inputs that are not returned. Organic certifications do not bother themselves with this criteria. When comparing land use of Conventional, Organic, and Sustainable farming methods, one can't look at only the amount of land under cultivation but also the amount of land required to create the inputs for the farming system. Conventional farming and some aspects of organic farming require factories, distribution facilities, petroleum in many forms, and create things like algal blooms and dead zones. And argh I have a kitchen to deconstruct. This was a fun lunch, but I just don't have time to find numbers to support all of this. Need caffeine and packing tape, sorry, bye.
  12. This is provisionally true. Data exists that you may not be aware of, and studies, court cases and newly-unsealed documents are raising doubts about the "it's all perfectly safe" stance. Here's a start: https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/2016/glyphosate_IARC2016.php and https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/business/monsanto-roundup-safety-lawsuit.html?_r=0 It appears you haven't read the links, studies, papers I posted... but you did find an argument I hadn't obviated. Thank you for telling me how I should be talking and what I should be talking about. I decline. It appears that you are under the impression that the new endocrine disrupting compounds in our environment that are demonstrably, clearly, obviously affecting multiple other species besides us are not affecting humans. Here is the Wikipedia article on xenoestrogens, it contains links to at least 11 hard-science studies proving your stance wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenoestrogen "Xenoestrogens have been implicated in a variety of medical problems, and during the last 10 years many scientific studies have found hard evidence of adverse effects on human and animal health.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] (...) Studies have implicated observations of disturbances in wildlife with estrogenic exposure. (...) Sperm concentrations and motility perimeters are reduced in male fish exposed to xenoestrogens in addition to disrupt stages of spermatogenesis.[22][32] Moreover, xenoestrogens have been leading to vast amounts of intersex in fish. For example, one study indicates the numbers of intersex in white sucker fish to be equal to the number of males in the population downstream of a waste water treatment plant. No intersex members were found upstream from the plant. Also, they found differences in the proportion of testicular and ovarian tissue and its degree of organization between the intersex fish.[32] Furthermore, xenoestrogens expose fish to CYP1A inducers through inhibiting a putative labile protein and enhancing the Ah receptor, which has been linked to epizootics of cancer and the initiation of tumors.[31] (...) A 2008 report demonstrates further evidence of widespread effects of feminizing chemicals on male development in each class of vertebrate species as a worldwide phenomenon.[45] 99% percent of over 100,000 recently introduced chemicals are underregulated, according to the European Commission.[45] Agencies such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety are charged to address these issues. " It also appears that you strawmanned my casual "want your dick to work" to mean Erectile Dysfunction. While this may be a concern to some, it was not what I was referencing. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-warn-of-sperm-count-crisis-8382449.html "The reproductive health of the average male is in sharp decline, the world's largest study of the quality and concentration of sperm has found. Between 1989 and 2005, average sperm counts fell by a third in the study of 26,000 men, increasing their risk of infertility. The amount of healthy sperm was also reduced, by a similar proportion." There's no completely definitive link, yes. Yes, fish and frogs downstream of such contamination sources have much higher rates of just these problems than those upstream, and yes people who've been around BPA and other xeno-estrogens have these problems at much higher rates, and male children are spontaneously aborted far more often in plastic & pesticide manufacturing areas, and people who work around these chemicals have just these kinds of problems, and many studies have shown that certain types of chemicals do cause these problems at certain times in gestation of non-human animals, but that's not completely and utterly definitive for today's humans. It is, however, enough for the U.N. to put out a well-researched report. If that's not enough for you, that's your choice... I'm not going to 'Splain why you should think or argue differently. ...... added to this post 5 minutes later: Organic farmers aren't "hungry for big profits", they don't get government subsidies. If we subsidized leafy greens the was we subsidize corn, organic food prices wouldn't be an issue. Note that 40+% of the corn grown in the US, all subsidized, is turned into ethanol for gas to burn in cars. A gas tank of corn-made Ethanol is calories enough to feed a family of four for a year. If this bothers you, please call your representatives the next time the U.S. Farm Bill is up for re-negotiation and let them know what you think should be subsidized. ...... added to this post 8 minutes later: This is a common misunderstanding. Organic food doesn't require more land, it requires more manual labor and less petroleum inputs. Costs mostly balance in the end, especially for Sustainable Farming enterprises. As for cost of Organic food, please note the difference in governmental subsidies (see previously posted image).
  13. A UN report, multiple scientific studies, primary sources have "too much straw"? No. You just want to niggle a response from other people. Fine, you have your responses, now next time you go to the store, consider buying Organic produce.
  14. Title: Un report condemns Big Ag's tactics: millions of deaths are directly attributable. AKA second sentence: The Big Agriculture's tactics to sell farmers compressed nitrogen, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, pelletized fertilizers, and other delicious things is killing soil, creating superbugs and superweeds, and of course these poisons are killing humans (and beggaring farmers while enriching chemical corporations). AKA rephrased: Millions of deaths are directly attributable to the tactics of large, corporate, chemical-focused agriculture, as reported by the UN; links found in Salon article provide primary sources, studies, trials, and proof. The above three statements are merely restatements of the articles linked. This means my post wasn't an infomercial, but reporting on information coming from the United Nations. The larger portion of my OP was neither restatements nor infomercial, it was rebuffing the typical types of arguments I get year after year on here when I try to talk about transitioning to Sustainable Agriculture. "Infomercial" is a new one, though.
  15. Here's the Salon story that links (at least) nine primary sources/articles. The Big Agriculture's tactics to sell farmers compressed nitrogen, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, pelletized fertilizers, and other delicious things is killing soil, creating superbugs and superweeds, and of course these poisons are killing humans (and beggaring farmers while enriching chemical corporations). Instead of laying out the arguments supporting above, I'm going to diverge from this, my usual tactic. Let me just explain this point very simply. Farmers spray/drench fields with their poisons: pesticides, fungicides, herbicides. The air, water, and land is mostly sterilized. Then compressed, frozen nitrogen is sprayed out through nozzles forced under the soil: this absolutely kills anything left alive in the soil. Then they plant seeds, usually coated with more poisons, and continue to spray throughout the growing season, some of which are persistent throughout the plant itself. PARALLEL: using powerful antifungals, stripping soaps, and antibiotics on a human for years and years, then being surprised when the human just doesn't flourish. Microbiomes are essential on human skins and in our guts... and they are essential in our fields, too. Read the links if you want more info. Most of those who want to argue against my point won't read anything else, so let's address their points. I know what their points are, they've been the same for literally decades. But we need modern Chemical Agriculture to feed the world! You're just a silly luddite/you can't expect to feed the world by going back to ancient tech/other strawmen This doesn't affect me/why should I care/only ridiculous hysterical liberal wimmen like you give a shit/other ad homs If it were so bad for us, it wouldn't have worked/the Free Market would have already fixed this/other scoffing This is just so bad I can't think about it/How dare you force me to even contemplate yet another horrible doom thing we're facing/I feel helpless argh Actually, it's a really good thing. Imagine if people in the 1950's and 1960's had said "Hey, cigarette smoking gives you cancer! That's awful! Let's put some breaks on this poisoning." So many people would not have had to suffer and die, so many millions of dollars wasted on cancer treatment. Just think how many spontaneous abortions, malformed reproductive tracts, acute poisonings, and other horrid outcomes we could avoid -- while feeding more people at less cost -- if we just transitioned to sustainable agriculture. And you can help: buy Organic or even Transitionally Organic, even if only once in a while. Yes, that's all you need to do to help. :)