I was agreeing with you when you said you don't know. If you did know the conversation would be different, as opposed to you guys waiting for me to fuel your doubts with more data.
Do you know how the burden of proof works?
Yes. But you're insisting I provide proof when I did. You also never read the post as you admitted yet suggest I'm burdened by not providing any evidence. You also agree with TC who only asked the same question.
It's not very useful when you've been presented with facts. Occam's razor is something that should be done in silence, not flashed around and making it the subject. Otherwise the conversation won't be productive. In this case It also insinuates I'm incorrect, while you couldn't argue to know the subject.
Well I would say it's likely that you're incorrect, in lieu of proving your case.
Okay, but I'll remind you that you admitted to not reading the posts and the best you can come up with is I'm likely incorrect.
I was referring to your claims of, hemp fuel. What you claimed about hemp fuel was a proposition. That proposition has an opposing proposition. Those two propositions form two hypotheses, and the two hypotheses compete with one another. I'm saying that the Occam's razor, in lieu of some pretty compelling evidence, disfavors your hypothesis.
You mentioned that fuel companies would then switch to selling hemp bio fuel, but that would only make the market more competitive since anyone would be able to whip up a batch of fuel. Obtaining oil is a different story. For that reason they sell oil.
Spatial... You have a company. All other companies are doing oil. You realize hemp is better and more profitable to the point you would absolutely dominate the market with it. On a scale of 1 to 10 how stupid would you be not to switch to hemp?
Hemp is better, but not profitable because it can only run in certain engines. Most engines can't run on biofuel. If you for example built hemp biofuel stations, you'd be fucked cause hardly anyone has the required hardware to run their vehicles on biofuel. You've have to have a guy walk up to each car, and tell them your fuel is different, and turn them away.
On a scale from 1 to 10 how likely is it that every company in the world, globally, is stupid enough not to switch to hemp? Or did the companies globally decide in one swoop conspiracy theory to not touch hemp so they can continue to exploit people and the atmosphere?
Oil is valuable because it's rare. One doesn't just go to the park and pull oil from under a rock. Whoever owns the land, owns the oil reserve. This incentivises the oil industry to push oil, not switch to something else EVERYONE can access starting with some seeds, soil and water. The oil industry is selling something we simply don't have access to. If an oil company switched to Hemp, they would get destroyed. The less competition, the more profitable.
Since greed is the name of the game, switching to hemp would've been a stupid move, because it's more easily accessed.
Another thing about big oil. It has other use cases, like cloth made with oil. A quick google search indicates oil has 6,000 use cases. Hemp having 25,000 use cases, I'm sure it knows most of oil's tricks, or maybe all of them who knows. Still it's better to burn hemp.
It would've destroyed a number of businesses. It takes 20 to 50 years or so to grow a tree, yet we use trees to produce paper.
Hemp paper is higher quality, the plant grows in 3 months, the soil is in better condition than it was before growing hemp on it. It wins in every category. Hemp was also widely used, but it was taken off the market, for chemical based products. This is not a conspiracy theory but an actual fact. Even money was hemp based, but it's been exchanged for the inferior and less practical paper we use to date.
https://www.alternet.org/2008/02/debunking_the_hemp_conspiracy_theory/
That was the first link. It took me less than 1 minute and you failed to address or acknowledge any of these opposing claims. You failed to meet the scientific standard again.
None of the debunks my claims. And fact remains, "Hemp is the most useful plant on Planet Earth. Period" I'll also throw in how hemp's cousin cannabis was demonized racially as it was being addressed by it's Mexican name Marijuana.
Dupont patents it's chemical based materials. None of their materials can hold a candle to hemp either. Another part that. Another part of the article about how it was made illegal in the first place reads:
"The campaign against cannabis heated up after Repeal. "I wish I could show you what a small marihuana cigaret can do to one of our degenerate Spanish-speaking residents," a Colorado newspaper editor wrote in 1936. "The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a DEADLY DRUG, and American children must be PROTECTED AGAINST IT," the Hearst newspapers editorialized."
Today, science knows cannabis isn't fatal, and how our brain literally has THC receptors. Like I said, we're more educated on the matter. Another thing about that, we weren't really able to tell the difference between Hemp and Cannabis until the 1960's when THC was discovered.
The Hemp Conspiracy was written in 2006 by Author Paul Wylie.
"The new book by Paul Wylie, detailing his illegal arrest while farming hemp in Nicaragua. The book provides evidence of a US-led conspiracy to eradicate the renewable hemp resource, and those who farm it."
I Posted evidence. I even posted Trudeau's pre election smear campaign that backfired on the Harper government. Video footage of Henry Ford in the flesh with his car made with and running on hemp. What more do you need ?
What more do I need? I've said, several times, and I continue to say the same thing: A solid understanding of the opposing arguments and addressing them. You simply narrate the propaganda that they're shoving down every marijuana user's throat instead of doing the one thing you should do, because you are unable to do it and do not understand how burden of proof or Occam's razor works, with all due respect.
Well bring the opposing arguments here. It's not my job to appease the way your brain works, but if you ask me, the opposing arguments come from places of doubt. My claim is hemp is the best plant ever and everything it produces is impressive.
Okay. Before you were boasting quality of standard when it came to that guy. When asked my opinion, I'd tell you TC's way is to ask questions, and bend the answer. That is a well known issue he has around here. This time it's question and doubt. You drank his kool-aid and now you thing the burden of proof is on me. Shame.
Then I retract it.
You still seem to think the burden of proof is on me, but more like I should be the one to deal out counter arguments to MY OWN claims.
Occam's razor doesn't guarantee you'll be right, especially against people who know what their talking about.
No, but it increases the likelihood that I'm right, and I don't have any reason to think you know what you're talking about except your say-so, no disrespect.
Heh. I have reason to believe you even started here cause you're on TC's dick and now you're kinda backpedalling. That was true with your so called strong agreeing with TC when he provided absolutely nothing but the same question, and TC repeated what I said about big business. Now you're going against what TC repeated what I said. Do you understand that I have no choice but to think little of you over that ? According to Occam's razor, you're getting destroyed here.
Finally. Your Author Steven Wishnia who wrote that article you have faith in ( it's faith dude ) wrote this 5 years later, and he's with me on this thread. https://www.alternet.org/2013/02/hemp-harmless-potential-economic-miracle-and-still-illegal-america-tide-seems-be-turning/ in 2013 he still thought the evidence against Dupont was "unsustainable" indicating 1 man's opinion.
