Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) | Edible Gardening | |||
"Left wing kookiness" | Gardening | |||
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) | Edible Gardening | |||
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) | Gardening | |||
"Left wing kookiness", and dissembling carpet-munchers | Gardening |