Well, no, that's not all he's doing, because that last line renders a moral judgment unrelated to olive trees. But even without that line, when you open by saying "bullshit" and then misstating the opposing position in a subtly incorrect way, you've crossed the line from "questioning" to "being combative about."
The comment hasn't been edited, or if it has, it was a very quickly made edit, within a minute or two of posting at most. You can tell because there’s no edit symbol on it. Even if it had been edited, all that means is that he himself thought it was important to expand his comment beyond the olive trees into a moral stance. It's not like anyone else is going back and editing his comment.
By the way, nice job completely ignoring my point about tone and word choice. Again, it doesn't really matter that he's talking about olive trees. He's obviously hostile, not merely inquisitive.
Yes, he's hostile because he finds the idea of Olive Trees not producing fruit for 70 years comically insane, because he misunderstood the original point.
There's questioning something you don't know about, and then there's being an asshole about something while being categorically wrong AND showing that you don't even understand the words you're replying to, and 5Cats was/is doing the latter former.
So Olive trees take 70 years to start producing? Is that so? I'm not understanding this "fact"?
In fact, someone linked an article about 1000+ year old olive trees which clearly stated that they produce the best from 5 - 100 years and then taper off sharply. My point was proven 😊 by them trying to disprove it.
I think I mistyped that last part. I've been pulling some 18 hour days lately. I think I meant to say you were doing the former (questioning something you don't know in a not rude manner). Let me go fix that.
I try to be "not rude" but often times telling people the truth really offends them.
In this case? 1000+ year old olive trees do exist, and still produce fruit. I didn't know that! They are few and far between. The images shown do not have "1000+ year old trees" in them.
I still know (and it was proven) that most olive plantations have a lifespan between 5 (when they start producing at scale) and 100 years (when the production drops off sharply). So 40-60 years and then they get chopped down, typically. Just like grapes (3-10 years) Raspberries (2-8 years) and apple trees (4 to 40 years) hit a wall of declining production & get replaced. (times are iirc) Of course they still make fruit after those ages, but this is a commercial business decision, not a tree in someone's back yard, eh?
That olive trees start producing in 5 years? And have the best output before age 100? Yes Cato could have looked that up in seconds rather than say something so abysmally stupid.
All he is doing is questioning a highly surprising fact about Olive Trees as a crop. Calm the fuck down.
Well, no, that's not all he's doing, because that last line renders a moral judgment unrelated to olive trees. But even without that line, when you open by saying "bullshit" and then misstating the opposing position in a subtly incorrect way, you've crossed the line from "questioning" to "being combative about."
You mean the edited line, an argument about a property rights?
No, he's clearly talking about Olive trees.
The comment hasn't been edited, or if it has, it was a very quickly made edit, within a minute or two of posting at most. You can tell because there’s no edit symbol on it. Even if it had been edited, all that means is that he himself thought it was important to expand his comment beyond the olive trees into a moral stance. It's not like anyone else is going back and editing his comment.
By the way, nice job completely ignoring my point about tone and word choice. Again, it doesn't really matter that he's talking about olive trees. He's obviously hostile, not merely inquisitive.
Yes, he's hostile because he finds the idea of Olive Trees not producing fruit for 70 years comically insane, because he misunderstood the original point.
There's questioning something you don't know about, and then there's being an asshole about something while being categorically wrong AND showing that you don't even understand the words you're replying to, and 5Cats was/is doing the
latterformer.Edit: Wrong word.
So Olive trees take 70 years to start producing? Is that so? I'm not understanding this "fact"?
In fact, someone linked an article about 1000+ year old olive trees which clearly stated that they produce the best from 5 - 100 years and then taper off sharply. My point was proven 😊 by them trying to disprove it.
I think I mistyped that last part. I've been pulling some 18 hour days lately. I think I meant to say you were doing the former (questioning something you don't know in a not rude manner). Let me go fix that.
I try to be "not rude" but often times telling people the truth really offends them.
In this case? 1000+ year old olive trees do exist, and still produce fruit. I didn't know that! They are few and far between. The images shown do not have "1000+ year old trees" in them.
I still know (and it was proven) that most olive plantations have a lifespan between 5 (when they start producing at scale) and 100 years (when the production drops off sharply). So 40-60 years and then they get chopped down, typically. Just like grapes (3-10 years) Raspberries (2-8 years) and apple trees (4 to 40 years) hit a wall of declining production & get replaced. (times are iirc) Of course they still make fruit after those ages, but this is a commercial business decision, not a tree in someone's back yard, eh?
Oh, so NOW you can give someone an extremely charitable interpretation of their (obviously goalpost-shifting) argument.
God you're an asshole.
It's not even a goalpost shift. His original complaint was about trees.
You could literally google that in 2 seconds
That olive trees start producing in 5 years? And have the best output before age 100? Yes Cato could have looked that up in seconds rather than say something so abysmally stupid.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Do not argue for the murder of users.
More anti-white propaganda from Brown University professors, I see.