Weird discussion involving McDonalds 

my collection so far:
Akibiyori (1960)
Tōkyō boshoku (1957)
Todake no kyodai (1941)
Nagaya shinshiroku (1947)
Dekigokoro (1933)
Ochazuke no aji (1952)

any recommendations with which to begin.
is better to start with the oldest one to see the progress of his artwork and get the whole picture?
my first attempt would be Akibiyori though. (kinda fitting to the season atm  )

oh no master has found me  .
i'll write pm would become too OT here

i'm drunk and in babbly mood...
have to add some background knowledge for artifical sugar:

US company monsanto (primer producer for Agent Orange beside Dow Chemical during Vietnam War) took over the artificial sweetener copmany G.D. Searle & Company in  1985 and created the subcompany NutraSweet (with chairman Donald Rumsfeld at that time). Shortly after its product Aspartam aka Nutrasweet got admission and found its way as a synthetical sweetener in many everday food products since then.
In July 2005 an italian study proofed higher brain tumor rates during testing with rats
US National Cancer Institute (which gets alibi donations by american food companies to support stuff like "healthy school food") made a counter study in 2006 that resulted in disproof of this thesis.

in many underdeveloped areas of the world where natural products are consumed (eg rural areas in india) tumor rate is still significantly lower
and statistically grows exponentially when getting closer from suburbs to bigger cities where these products are consumed on a daily basis.

funnily the toxicity of this and similar stuff is still measured by a method (forgot its name) from the first half of 20th century, where the amount that shows slightest negative effects with rats is divided by the completely randomized number 100 (some scientists which where involved in this decision progress, told the random pick many decades later).
Newest studies seem to proof the assumption that these synthetic and enzymatic substances change human dna in an exponential and not a linear way as defined by this old method.


this theory is still very controversial, but bold part is fact.
my conclusions:
bitcoin will grow like a positive tumor in fiat system and i stay with my lovely sugar which has its place in human society for more than 10.000 years  

You know that listing a few examples where doctors cause harm to their patients doesn't imply that the medical profession a a bastion of homicidal mania, right?

Nor does it imply that we'd live longer or better without doctors.
I'm not sure if more expertise on your part would have changed matters much, but your humility is a nice start
Oh, and, of course, thanks for the amusing anecdotes.  Go figure, even environmentalists & regulators screw up -- whoda thunked!

Edit:  As far as "which group's better at protecting the environment"?  Neither.  It's explodin' nuclear reactors.  After the whole Chernobyl thing, you know what the wildlife around there is like now?  Frickin' awesome.  I say we forget environmentalism & drain the cooling cores in all the nukes, fill the suckers up with heavy crude, and see what happens

Because that's a ridiculous assertion.  You've demanded someone  pick a subject to discuss from a multitude of technical, regulatory and legal areas, as a way of getting out of the prior discussion, then asserted that if he does not do as you say, he/she has no "requisite domain knowledge", whatever that might mean.

But I'm already stated twice why you can't just make demands on people and then insult them if they don't do what you want.  In fact, that was the nature of the discussion you wished to get away from, wasn't it?  That you are not the proper agent to tell others how to act.

And here you are doing it again?

Ad hominem yet again.  Losing the argument?  The argument that you wanted to shift the discussion to?  Which would imply that you have the sole-designated discretion as to the subject of discussion?  That you are the Controller, and the Authority.

And I completely and fully explained how those ecosystem services can be bypassed, and why, and why your centrally controlled ecosystem management is inadequate and flawed.

I did comprehend it. I simply dismissed it as irrelevant, due to the fact that we can more or less controll our own environment, even if on a limited scale, and will only get better at it. Plus a list of some things you wanted rebutals to is not a long post. You wanted answers to those things, I gave them to you.

I put just as much effort into this, and provided just as many specific, as you have. It's only fair  

Control, coersion, force, and violence. Evil.


Control, coersion, force, and violence. Evil.


Control, coersion, force, and violence. Evil.


Control, coersion, force, and violence. Evil.

I could have also said:


Ineffective and often counterproductive


At the least way too slow to respond, and at worst completely counterproductive, since written by those being regulated


Easily manipulated and at the whim of bought-and-paid-for politicians


Pointless, since land is still leased for mining and drilling. Also ineffective, since controled at the whims of bought-and-paid-for politicians.


However, I like my first answer best, which basically summarizes all your buller points, and you in particular, as "Controlling, coersive, manipulative, and evil."

Ad hominum is prima facie losing the argument.

And yes, you are re asserting your desire to shift the goalposts.  They WERE

your ideas....and your beliefs

and now you'd like them to be...

...some group of government policies or regulations which you'd like someone on the internet to "attack".

As previously mentioned I reject the shifting of goalposts.  If you don't like or want the subject of conversation to be you or your beliefs, fine.  

Oh.  So as opposed to 'your control', you would like to take the stand that the government's controls are what I must criticize?  But they are not 'your controls', because they allow massive amounts of drilling and shale oil extraction which increases every year.  They allow massive amounts of carbon 'pollution' without any real control, in spite of some threats and hand waving by the EPA and the current administration.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that you were a true environmentalist.  And such a person would never take the stand that the environmental position of the US government was his position.

And this kind of talk -

I guess you can't. Probably due to lack of knowledge. Thus you fall back on your ineffectual memes, which of course, aren't indicative of thought or knowledge, but parroting, repeating what your idols say.

Is pretty laughable, given that I've just spent about two years on a major effort, one sizable part of which has been studying radical environmentalism, it's leaders, methods, tactics, strategies, and it's successes and mistakes.  It's not the most interesting subject, one could pick better. 

This is called in debate "shifting the goalposts".  I reject it as an answer.  You asked what I thought was "dark" about your vision, and I tried to answer clearly and without any personal attack.  

Hasn't worked out well compared to what?   Where can i marvel at the environmental mavericks "Preserving species near extition simply by backing up their DNA for future cloning ... terraforming entire planets, and creating biodomes and sustainable ecosystems, able to keep us and a few other select species alive indefinitely in space"?  

Or is that just empty verbiage?  

Generally, the one who makes the extraordinary claim must support it.

What I may know about water, aerosol particle formation, deep ocean heat, oxygen isotopes, upper stratosphere heat exchange, Naviar Stokes modeling of turbulence, mathematics of chaotic behavior, etc, isn't relevant one bit to the discussion.

Your vision is dark because of it's premise that some (you) know best and may self-affirm their right to control others' behavior. 

This has not worked out very well, historically.  Some of the other people have made some very good comments in this thread, by the way.