No I'm not. It's a well established fact while you are making an unsubstantiated assertion. All you are saying is: (a) you are missing the point (b) you value certain aspects of the production chain differently to the people actually in the production chain. But it is unethical for you to impose your valuations onto others.
That's a ludicrous argument. I have directed you and others to plenty of sources which substantiate my position. Your refusal to visit those sources is your deficiency...not mine, and no one else's. My position is backed by evidence, yours is not. I value all aspects of production, unlike you who values only those that you think will make your case. Either way, you fail.
No, it's the result of some people like doomsday (and those who fanatically attach themself to a bad argument made) making absurd suggestions and sticking to their argument in the face of good evidence which refutes that argument. Reminds me of dealing with religious fundamentalists....no matter how much good evidence you present them, they still adhere unapologetically to their claim that the world is 6000 years old. This thread should not have been hi-jacked by those fundamentalist-types....but at times, it has been. I am trying to order sense into the senseless. A lot of good that seems to have done
Ddddon't ggget yyyyyyour ffffffeaders rrrrrrrruffled MmmmmmisssingLLLLLLink. Enjjjjjoy the the ffffffforummmmm. :lol:
IIII ammmmm tryingggg, ironwooddddd, butttt someeee peopleeee makeeee itttt nextttt tooo impossibleeeee forrrr thatttt tooooo happennnnn.
This silver vs platinum business...it takes months of electricity-heavy refining to produce a quantity of platinum and that's after the time spent extracting the ore. A good many steps missing from the process of acquiring silver. Anyway, I love cats but acknowledge the tiger quoll would be a more ecologically friendly carnivorous pet for Australians, if we can take the time(generations) to domesticate it.
Beautiful animal. From what I have read, the mining and production of silver into a usable bullion state is very energy intensive and the use of toxic chemicals is standard. On top of this, to acquire the same value in silver as an ounce of platinum, about 65 ounces of silver must be produced which entails more of these energy intensive and toxic chemical processes. 1 ounce platinum or 65 ounces of silver....which requires more resources? I believe hands down that silver production requires more resources for the same value acquired. I have seen no evidence-based argument which shows it the other way....just presumptive claims by some people who obviously don't know. If someone does have the technical facts of resources required for locating, permit clearances, insurance costs, mining and extraction operations costs, refining costs, etc, etc, etc for each metal laid out side by side, please stop keeping it to yourself. This would resolve this whole debate. Lest this not be forgotten, we must base the comparison on value of final product acquired otherwise the comparison is of little or no use. i oz of silver is NOT equal in value to 1 oz of platinum.
Jesus Christ. Even though you're still trying to compare milk to shoes you just said it yourself - platinum costs 65 times silver in labour, capital, energy, time etc produce one saleable ounce. Why does anything have a price in the first place? Because it's scarce. Why does platinum cost more? Because it uses more scarce things in producing it. Sending me to www.google.com isn't really sending me to "plenty of sources" (possibly the link doesn't work). Probably beside the point anyway as I'm guessing it's just some misguided view of the poor taxpayer footing the bill of bad property rights definition and enforcement by the same agency who is unethically taking the taxes in the first place to do the definition and enforcement job. If so the failure is with the governance entity not the producing companies. Think about it this way. If some people who have silver in their possession are paying others to landfill their scrap silver (from say computer waste) and others are paying miners to produce new silver to refine and mint into new bars then there is clearly an incentive for someone to aggregate the computer waste, break it up, use harsh chemicals etc to extract the silver content, manage the disposal of the waste products and mint their bars. If they can do it cheaper than the mining production chain (including the cost of building the recycling facilities) then they can undercut the most expensive producer and gain market share. The final consumer doesn't see any difference except for a lower market price. Society sees the benefit of the savings of the scarce resources embodied in all of the inputs. Every scarce resource (including human labour, time and available mineral resources) is embodied in the cost. (Governments can distort things obviously but that's a separate discussion around how you can know by how much in a globalised production chain using hundreds of individual steps.) The value of the "toxins" produced as a by-product are fully included (or mostly included in places with poor recognition of property rights). By simply looking on the packaging it is nearly impossible to see which production chain (whether a recycled product or virgin) has the least amount of inappropriate property rights enforcement (hence horse meat in European "beef" lasagne). I'm not saying that you can't vote with your wallet - indeed, I actively encourage everyone to do so - but saying that recycled silver is somehow more "ethical" is wrong unless you can prove the providence of every single thing in its production chain.
I blame introduced feral cats and foxes for all of the loss of our native animals. It has NOTHING to do with the trendy BS of "loss of habitat". Both animals should be removed from Australia. OC
From my own experience I can say Cats are clever. I can remember the first cat who owned us used to tell me and my sister off for arguing! I shit you not when we were between 4- 12 years old and had the odd face off with raised voices that cat would run right up inbetween us and tell us to cut it out in no uncertain terms ( in cat language of course ). Boy did it work, Funny looking back. That thoughtful clever cat did loads of amazing stuff. We have a big turtle off gaurd dog now but cats are cool.
I got two cats theyre awesome pets low maintanance and they bury their shit. Being a dog owner is kind of demeaning if Im gonna spend my time picking up shit I might as well have kids.
What a load of crap. My argument was simple - get rid of cats in Australia. Just because you want to turn it into some other argument about wiping out humanity because "humans caused it" is not my problem. You're the typical cat lover faced with evidence of how destructive these pests are and yet blame everything else except the pests. What is absurd about my suggestion? It makes perfect sense. Get rid of cats and a lot of native species will thrive again. How hard is that too understand?
An argument that makes perfect sense and should be implemented. Of course it will never happen as the fanatic cat brigade would put so much pressure on the politicians that those gutless wonders would cave in. Maybe you should add politicians to be removed from Oz as well.
