Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 09:09 PM
Bob Brock
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:58:36 -0600, Patrick Sonnek
wrote:

You know, you reall all are bunch of loud mouths.
(and by the way, this is not addressed to any one individual, or group,
there are several on both sides of the argument who sound like bunch of
children.)

Can't we discuss things like intelligent adults?
or is that asking too much?
or is it just too much fun calling your nieghbor a dumb shit and a moron?


OK...I'll quit winding him up and watching him go round and round. I
need to go Christmas shopping and finish cleaning up around the house
anyway.

No hard feelings....eh?
  #17   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 09:09 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"

Tom Quackenbush wrote:

George Cleveland wrote:


"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill



OK, I have to confess ignorance here - I'm not very familiar with
J.S. Mill. When did he write that & did he mean "conservative" in the
same political sense that it's used today?


John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873, was one of the most
important English philosophers and political thinkers
of his age. He is noted as one of the leading
proponents of utilitarianism.

He wrote at a time when the previously revolutionary
thinking of the Enlightenment of the 18th century was
finding practical expression in Great Britain.
Conservatives, in Mill's day, were those who opposed
the basic principle of the Enlightenment philosophers:
that man is a rational being, and able to make
choices for himself without direction from higher
authority. Those who accepted the premise of man's
rationality and choice-making ability were the
liberals, and to this day in Europe, "liberal" largely
still has this meaning.

In the U.S., however, "liberal" has come to have the
antithesis of its original meaning. Liberal, in 20th
and 21st century U.S., means a belief that man is NOT
competent to make his own choices. He needs
self-styled enlightened elitists - Democrats, usually -
to decide what is good for him, what he should have,
what he should do, how he should talk and think.
Today's principled conservatives - the late Barry
Goldwater was an exemplar - believe that a powerful
central government is a dangerous threat to individual
liberty, and want to curtail it. They believe that man
ought to be free to decide most things for himself;
contemporary liberals are opposed.

People like John Ashcroft and Rush Limbaugh are not
conservatives; they are reactionaries, and would have
opposed the liberalism of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Someone like the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan
combined elements of classical liberalism and its
contemporary mutant derivative.


I only ask because it seems that being conservative, rather than
innovative, is a good survival strategy for those of us that aren't
brilliant. IOW, reliance on the "tried and true" methods seems to be a
safer bet than risking the unknown, which tends to have a high failure
rate.

FWIW, I'm all in favor of _someone_ risking the unknown, but if I
were responsible for feeding my wife & kids, I'd rather it were
someone _else_.

R,
Tom Q.


  #18   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 09:09 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65463 rec.gardens:259206 misc.survivalism:500543 misc.rural:115161 rec.backcountry:172121

Bob Brock wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 13:58:36 -0600, Patrick Sonnek
wrote:


You know, you reall all are bunch of loud mouths.
(and by the way, this is not addressed to any one individual, or group,
there are several on both sides of the argument who sound like bunch of
children.)

Can't we discuss things like intelligent adults?
or is that asking too much?
or is it just too much fun calling your nieghbor a dumb shit and a moron?



OK...I'll quit winding him up


You never were.

  #19   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 09:15 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"

Bob Brock wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:51:16 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


Jonathan Ball wrote:


Bob Brock wrote:


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:




Look: less is more.



Right is Wrong.
War is Peace.


It figures, in your pig-headedness and stupidity, that
you'd snip out and ignore what I wrote about concise
writing being better than wheezy, droning rants; you're
a droner yourself. Here, in case you want to have
another try at it, fat ****:

A quote I've seen attributed to Pascal, Montaigne
and Mark Twain - I'm sorry to be confusing you with
those two foreigners, of whom you undoubtedly have
never heard - runs something like, "If I'd had more
time, I'd have written a shorter letter."

Brevity is the soul of wit.


Pity you've never heard of Pascal or Montaigne.




You really are a stupid ****.


But don't take that the wrong way...



Hey....I'm not the one resorting to profanity and stuttering.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wind you up and watch you go!


You?! You couldn't wind up a kid's wris****ch.

  #20   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 09:15 PM
Mike Warren
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"

"Volker Hetzer" writes:

(Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm willing to
reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now
it just means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my
city eats more meat.)


From a carbon-emission standpoint, eating less meat is good. For
example, the Canadian government claims not eating meat every other
day saves around a quarter ton of carbon-emissions annually; not sure
if that counts methane with its carbon-equivalence or not...

Cheers,

--
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
URL:http://www.mike-warren.com
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD


  #21   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 09:32 PM
Frogleg
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:06:50 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

"Diet for a Small Planet" IS INDEED an expression of
leftist political thinking. So is "veganism". If
someone tells me he's "vegan", I know EVERYTHING about
his politics; there's nothing concealed.


My goodness -- a psychic! I am an omnivore (except for lima beans),
but I find there are many reasons behind vegetarian/vegan preferences
ranging widely among the religious, ethical, health, and economic. *I*
sure can't tell anyone's politics from their food preferences.
  #22   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 09:32 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65468 rec.gardens:259211 misc.survivalism:500549 misc.rural:115168 rec.backcountry:172126

Mike Warren wrote:

"Volker Hetzer" writes:


(Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm willing to
reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now
it just means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my
city eats more meat.)



From a carbon-emission standpoint, eating less meat is good. For
example, the Canadian government claims not eating meat every other
day saves around a quarter ton of carbon-emissions annually; not sure
if that counts methane with its carbon-equivalence or not...


I'd love to see the support for that claim.

Anyway, it ignores the fact that not all meat is
produced the same way. For example, if you eat
"normal" grain-fattened beef, your contribution to
carbon emissions is going to be much greater than if
you eat grass-fed (only) beef, which is increasingly
available, or if you were to eat some game you hunted
yourself.

Another "anyway" point: the optimal amount of
pollution is not zero. You may wish to reduce the
pollution you cause, but you'll never push it to zero.

  #23   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 09:32 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"

Frogleg wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:06:50 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


"Diet for a Small Planet" IS INDEED an expression of
leftist political thinking. So is "veganism". If
someone tells me he's "vegan", I know EVERYTHING about
his politics; there's nothing concealed.



My goodness -- a psychic!


No; an astute observer. No psychic ability is required.

I am an omnivore (except for lima beans),


Ooohh, you're missing out on a truly delicious and
nutritious and versatile food.

but I find there are many reasons behind vegetarian/vegan preferences
ranging widely among the religious, ethical, health, and economic. *I*
sure can't tell anyone's politics from their food preferences.


You could, if you'd study harder.

Lurking behind EVERY "vegan's" - not vegetarian's -
dietary choices is some kind of belief in animal
"rights". People may be vegetarian for a variety of
reasons, but people are "vegan" out of a belief in
leftist/collectivist dogma. Most don't even bother to
deny it; those who do can always quickly be shown to be
liars.

  #24   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 09:32 PM
Bob Brock
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:10:59 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

Bob Brock wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:51:16 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


Jonathan Ball wrote:


Bob Brock wrote:


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:




Look: less is more.



Right is Wrong.
War is Peace.


It figures, in your pig-headedness and stupidity, that
you'd snip out and ignore what I wrote about concise
writing being better than wheezy, droning rants; you're
a droner yourself. Here, in case you want to have
another try at it, fat ****:

A quote I've seen attributed to Pascal, Montaigne
and Mark Twain - I'm sorry to be confusing you with
those two foreigners,


Gosh, you got me there. All this time, I thought Mark Twain was an
American.

Learn something new every day.
  #25   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 09:32 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"

Bob Brock wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:10:59 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


Bob Brock wrote:


On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:51:16 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:



Jonathan Ball wrote:



Bob Brock wrote:



On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:11:43 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:





Look: less is more.



Right is Wrong.
War is Peace.


It figures, in your pig-headedness and stupidity, that
you'd snip out and ignore what I wrote about concise
writing being better than wheezy, droning rants; you're
a droner yourself. Here, in case you want to have
another try at it, fat ****:

A quote I've seen attributed to Pascal, Montaigne
and Mark Twain - I'm sorry to be confusing you with
those two foreigners,



Gosh, you got me there. All this time, I thought Mark Twain was an
American.


You can't count, either, can you? You fat ****. Twain
was the third one listed.

In your pig-headedness and stupidity, you're still
missing the essential point: saying the same thing in
fewer words is a more powerful way of expressing yourself.


Learn something new every day.


No, you haven't learned anything new in a looooooong
time. Pig-headed fools seldom do.



  #26   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 09:32 PM
Jeff McCann
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"

"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag

ink.net...
Rico X. Partay wrote:

"Bob Peterson" wrote in message
...


Diet for a Small Planet is hardly evidence
of anything other than left wing kookiness.
If you want to trust your life to something
that nutty then do so, otherwise have some
animal products in your diet.



When you use adjectives like "left wing" in a technical
discussion about nutrition you tend to show you have an adgenda
that has nothing to do with the merits of the argument, and you
thereby lower the credibility of anything useful you may have to
say.

To paraphrase Al Franken, arguing about whether a diet is
"left wing" or "right wing" is like arguing whether al-Qaeda uses
too much vinegar in its salad dressing. It may be true, but it's
completely beside the point.

Hope this helps.


It only helped to show that you aren't very astute, and
you're probably too contaminated by notions of
political correctness ever to learn.

"Diet for a Small Planet" IS INDEED an expression of
leftist political thinking. So is "veganism". If
someone tells me he's "vegan", I know EVERYTHING about
his politics; there's nothing concealed.


That's a pretty small platform from which to jump to such large
conclusions. However, it is sadly typical of far-right reactionaries,
Repuppetcans, and others of that ilk.

Sorry, maybe I'm living in the wrong country for this but all the

vegans
*I* know vote either right (CDU) or just very slightly left from the
center (SPD). None of them would even consider the PDS or any other
leftwing party.
For me your statement is a typical

I-don't-like-it-so-it-must-be-commy-stuff
generalisation.
As for "diet for a small planet", that's about defeating world hunger

by reducing
food chain related losses. Not much leftwing stuff there except maybe

that
hunger is bad. (Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm

willing
to reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now

it just
means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my city eats

more
meat.)


Nice try, Herr Hetzer, but apparently Mr. Ball already knows everything
he needs to know. What this actually means is that he is now fully
immune to any further learning, growth or insight. Having a meaningful
discussion with his type is not only unlikely, but also utterly
pointless. All of his beliefs and opinions are burnished with the light
of Truth Revealed, at least in his own mind, and the minds of his
fellow-travelers.

By the way, thank you for participating. I always enjoy reading your
comments.

Jeff


  #27   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 09:33 PM
Jeff McCann
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"


"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag

ink.net...
I looked it up, you know? Have a look at

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...5666?v=glance.

Thanks for posting that. It helps to confirm that the
author, Frances Lappe, is a leftwing extremist.

So what exactly makes him that?

Can you imagine Kim Il Sung not eating meat
or what exactly makes someone leftwing and
extremist in your eyes?

[snip]

Mostly just disagreeing with any nonsense he spouts.

Jeff


  #28   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 09:43 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"

Jeff McCann wrote:

"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag


ink.net...

Rico X. Partay wrote:


"Bob Peterson" wrote in message
...



Diet for a Small Planet is hardly evidence
of anything other than left wing kookiness.
If you want to trust your life to something
that nutty then do so, otherwise have some
animal products in your diet.



When you use adjectives like "left wing" in a technical
discussion about nutrition you tend to show you have an adgenda
that has nothing to do with the merits of the argument, and you
thereby lower the credibility of anything useful you may have to
say.

To paraphrase Al Franken, arguing about whether a diet is
"left wing" or "right wing" is like arguing whether al-Qaeda uses
too much vinegar in its salad dressing. It may be true, but it's
completely beside the point.

Hope this helps.

It only helped to show that you aren't very astute, and
you're probably too contaminated by notions of
political correctness ever to learn.

"Diet for a Small Planet" IS INDEED an expression of
leftist political thinking. So is "veganism". If
someone tells me he's "vegan", I know EVERYTHING about
his politics; there's nothing concealed.



That's a pretty small platform from which to jump to such large
conclusions.


It may appear so to you, but you are wrong. Empirical
observation bears it out: "veganism" is a marker, a
signal, for extreme leftwing sentiment.



Nice try, Herr Hetzer, but apparently Mr. Ball already knows everything
he needs to know.


When someone identifies himself as "vegan", he has
indeed told me all I need to know, in order to know his
overall political stance.

  #29   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 09:43 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"

Jeff McCann wrote:

"Strider" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:19:51 -0800, "Rico X. Partay"
wrote:


"Bob Peterson" wrote in message
...


Diet for a Small Planet is hardly evidence
of anything other than left wing kookiness.
If you want to trust your life to something
that nutty then do so, otherwise have some
animal products in your diet.


When you use adjectives like "left wing" in a technical
discussion about nutrition you tend to show you have an adgenda
that has nothing to do with the merits of the argument, and you
thereby lower the credibility of anything useful you may have to
say.

To paraphrase Al Franken, arguing about whether a diet is
"left wing" or "right wing" is like arguing whether al-Qaeda uses
too much vinegar in its salad dressing. It may be true, but it's
completely beside the point.

Hope this helps.


The source of any information is relevant to the value of that
information. Any info from leftwing, tofu sucking, liberals is rife
with their philosophy, is based on fantasy, and is suspect from the
outset.



But even a stopped clock is correct twice every day.


In other words, an infinitesimally small and, thus,
meaningless slice of time. It figures you'd make much
of a trite, hackneyed expression like that.

  #30   Report Post  
Old 17-12-2003, 09:44 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Left wing kookiness"

Jeff McCann wrote:

"Volker Hetzer" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ball" schrieb im Newsbeitrag


ink.net...

I looked it up, you know? Have a look at


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...5666?v=glance.

Thanks for posting that. It helps to confirm that the
author, Frances Lappe, is a leftwing extremist.


So what exactly makes him that?

Can you imagine Kim Il Sung not eating meat
or what exactly makes someone leftwing and
extremist in your eyes?


[snip]

Mostly just disagreeing with any nonsense he spouts.


No, that's not it. It's a belief in anti-market,
anti-liberty collectivism that is approached from the
political left.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) Rico X. Partay Edible Gardening 52 22-04-2004 09:08 PM
"Left wing kookiness" Rico X. Partay Gardening 182 22-04-2004 09:02 PM
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) Jonathan Ball Edible Gardening 17 21-12-2003 06:43 PM
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) Rico X. Partay Gardening 5 19-12-2003 03:32 AM
"Left wing kookiness", and dissembling carpet-munchers Jonathan Ball Gardening 0 18-12-2003 09:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017