Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 143 posts

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#111

Post by krageon »

nobodywasishere wrote: post #108
krageon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> privileged Westerners What about the folks that are poor? Those are the biggest group, and it's a little tone-deaf to call them privileged just because they were born in a place that contains folks that got rich.

I think they meant "those people who are Westerners who are also privileged" and not "all Westerners, who are all privileged".

If it's just the privileged few that go vegan, how would it be a solution to anything at all? That's why I assumed this person meant everyone.

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#112

Post by _fs »

retSava wrote: post #70
arbitrage wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hey netflix PR plant person. > exactly why we need something like seaspiracy. scientists have been preaching this sermon for fifty years. a pithy pop-'science' crypto-vegan documentary is not going to fix this problem. we don't need to disguise complex issues as infotainment.

There are levels. Individuals may need something that seems like "entertainment" to accept and make individual change. Politicians need something else, eg science and studies, in order to conduct politics and change/form laws and regulation. Both are needed.

> Politicians need something else, eg science and studies, in order to conduct politics and change/form laws and regulation

If only that were the case. When was the last time a popular politician gave any regard to scientific studies. In politics, it's all about 3 things. Money, money, and money.

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#113

Post by RHSman2 »

iamacyborg wrote: post #103
RHSman2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you should have watched to the end then your comments may have been very different

Why would I when the first 20 minutes were so painfully bad?

So you could make a valid comment on HN instead of ‘I didn’t watch it but here is my opinion’?

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#114

Post by jfengel »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #105
jfengel wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just handed you the ELI5 version. Would you have been any happier if I had said nothing more than my second paragraph? I can go out and find somebody else saying the same thing, if that would help. But I'm trying to locate the source of the issue here. I gave you the thing you wanted and you don't appear to have acknowledge its existence. So I'm trying to figure out the actual issue here.

> gave you the thing you wanted and you don't appear to have acknowledge its existence. So I'm trying to figure out the actual issue here. The actual issue is not of ME not knowing (my question was intended to provide the "typical person not interested" perspective but apparently I failed to do that). As I said, I do know what global warming is. The issue is that people are stuck between some who will say "look outsi…

It exists in plenty of places. The problem is that it's buried under denialist crap, and refutations of denialist crap.

We should be teaching it in schools. When you try, the denialists demand equal time. In exactly the same way that the creationists demand equal time, because it's exactly the same people.

I cannot win on this. I've simply accepted the loss. I get through my life by not talking to conspiracy theorists: birthers, 9/11 truthers, moon landing deniers, creationists, Republicans, etc. They are a tarpit that, once you touch it, you will never be free from. I am aware that not talking to them doesn't fix the problem, but since I'm certain that talking to them doesn't fix the problem either, I accept that I have failed and try to make my life as comfortable as it can be under the circumstances.

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#115

Post by iamacyborg »

RHSman2 wrote: post #113
iamacyborg wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would I when the first 20 minutes were so painfully bad?

So you could make a valid comment on HN instead of ‘I didn’t watch it but here is my opinion’?

What have I said that's wrong?

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#116

Post by RHSman2 »

iamacyborg wrote: post #115
RHSman2 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you could make a valid comment on HN instead of ‘I didn’t watch it but here is my opinion’?

What have I said that's wrong?

Its a very intriguing and sensitive subject that I personally don’t think is a waste of time and there is an awful lot more to the documentary than the first 20 mins.

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#117

Post by creaturemachine »

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #88
jfengel wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is, in essence, the crux of the problem. With your level of education it shouldn't be at all difficult to find a resource that answers your questions. Instead you've sought out two comic strips and two extremely ideological sources. The basics of climate change can be taught standing on one foot. Carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation, while oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to it. There was an equilibrium betwee…

OK, I see that the "you are dumb" argument is towards me now. I know that cigarettes are bad for my lungs and for my heart. How do I know that? Because I can read ONE COMMON OPINION everywhere. All the time. Nobody claims it is good. Global warming? I hear everything pro and con and then more. Your answer is essentially: go learn something because it is true. The funny part? I know very well this is true. How? Where…

If you could find an xkcd that sums up your position that would be great.

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#118

Post by iamacyborg »

RHSman2 wrote: post #116
iamacyborg wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What have I said that's wrong?

Its a very intriguing and sensitive subject that I personally don’t think is a waste of time and there is an awful lot more to the documentary than the first 20 mins.

It is an interesting topic, I don't disagree, I just really didn't like the presenter's style.

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#119

Post by BrandoElFollito »

jfengel wrote: post #114
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> gave you the thing you wanted and you don't appear to have acknowledge its existence. So I'm trying to figure out the actual issue here. The actual issue is not of ME not knowing (my question was intended to provide the "typical person not interested" perspective but apparently I failed to do that). As I said, I do know what global warming is. The issue is that people are stuck between some who will say "look outsi…

It exists in plenty of places. The problem is that it's buried under denialist crap, and refutations of denialist crap. We should be teaching it in schools. When you try, the denialists demand equal time. In exactly the same way that the creationists demand equal time, because it's exactly the same people. I cannot win on this. I've simply accepted the loss. I get through my life by not talking to conspiracy theorist…

I have too much of latin character to stop.

We do not have creationists in France the same way as in the US - schools are teaching evolution and everyone is happy but even this is changing a bit. The recent events on critique of religions (and the death of a teacher - Samuel Paty) is a signal.

Re: Is Netflix's Seaspiracy film right about fishing damaging oceans?

#120

Post by RHSman2 »

iamacyborg wrote: post #118
RHSman2 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a very intriguing and sensitive subject that I personally don’t think is a waste of time and there is an awful lot more to the documentary than the first 20 mins.

It is an interesting topic, I don't disagree, I just really didn't like the presenter's style.

Then you aren’t wasting your time then.
Post reply on HN