Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 18-12-2003, 04:08 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)

gregpresley wrote:
"Bob Peterson" wrote in

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.



A short biography of Frances Moore Lappe is found at the following
website:http://www.bookbrowse.com/index.cfm?...r&authorID=801

If you are capable of reading it, you'll see that, among other things, she
has been a faculty member at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which,
as we all know, is famed for handing out faculty positions to people with no
credentials whatsoever, other than general left-wing kookiness.


Well, Paul Samuelson had some credentials in economics,
but he *was* a leftwing kook, and his Keynesian
prescriptives - doctrinaire big government, always and
everywhere - are thoroughly discredited.

(Never mind her 15 honorary doctorates, including one from

University of Michigan).

Honorary doctorates?! You must be kidding. Those ARE
handed out for various types of kookiness, and academia
just LOVES leftwing kookiness. Christall****ingmighty,
you dumbass, the "Rev." Al Sharpton has an honorary
doctorate!

[...]

Incidentally, for those who leaped on Ms. Lappe for being a vegan


I didn't even know she was "vegan", but it probably was
a safe assumption.

You, being an ardent hardcore angry leftist and
probably a "vegan" as well, are simply blind.
"veganism" IS fundamentally the politicization of diet.
Lappe's rationale for advocating extreme
vegetarianism is completely leftwing; the text of that
fluff piece you linked to above is larded with leftist
anti-market language: "...whether we can go beyond
today’s consumerism and the isolation of me-first
capitalism and find paths we each can walk that will
heal our lives and the planet." "Consumerism",
"me-first capitalism", "heal..the planet": these are
ALL leftist totems, you ****ing moron.

That bullshit page references an institute she and some
other ardent leftist named Joseph Collins founded, the
Institute for Food and Development Policy, otherwise
known as Food First. I went to their page,
www.foodfirst.org (how did I know?), and there I found
reference after reference to leftist anti-market
political ideology. I also found the only word that
matters: "progressive", the happy-face word of choice
leftists prefer.


  #2   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2003, 11:33 AM
gregpresley
 
Posts: n/a
Default Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)

I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this
discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to dismiss the
conclusions of this author without reading a word of her book. Perhaps
you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced to disregard everything you
write, as meaningless drivel coming out of a well of ignorance.

..........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my post in
the long unsupported rant by the following poster......

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in


  #3   Report Post  
Old 19-12-2003, 04:20 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)

gregpresley wrote:

I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this
discussion,


Not relevant to a discussion of the author's blatant
poltical bias, which shows up not only in the book in
question but throughout her other books and her
institutional affiliations.

as well as those of your cohorts


Misuse of the word "cohort", reflecting your appalling
ignorance.

who chose to dismiss the
conclusions of this author without reading a word of her book.


Junk science based on extremist political agendas
usually advertises itself outside of its text. Lappe's
crap is no exception.

Perhaps
you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced to disregard everything you
write, as meaningless drivel coming out of a well of ignorance.


So: you're happy to indicate that you are a raging,
dogmatic leftist, too.

It figures you'd snip out the material about her
founding of, and affiliation with, openly leftist
groups, and not just leftist, but extremist as well.

  #4   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2003, 04:33 AM
Ayrshire
 
Posts: n/a
Default Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)

"gregpresley" wrote in
:

I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials
in this discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to
dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of
her book. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced
to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming
out of a well of ignorance.

.........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my
post in the long unsupported rant by the following poster......

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in




No, Johnathan, what you are unwilling to do is accept Greg's
political analysis. Lappe attributes the existence of hunger to an
economy that fails to offer everyone opportunity. She fails to note
that the majority of these economies are really socialist
dictatorships or countries where islam is the dominant culture.
Poverty & food is used as a weapon to keep enough people enslaved to
the leadership of the country in order to maintain control. Sudan,
Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Bangladesh & Cuba are examples of the control
& cultures I speak about. She talks about the plight of landless and
land-poor people and the need for land reform. Of course there is no
definition of land reform, which usually means taking land away from
owners to give someone else. this is another means of control like
the Mexican revloution's land reform and subsequent 70 years of one
party rule.
The nonsense you refer to about universities only hiring highly
credentialed persons is laughable. One doesn't get tenure in a
university unless they toe the politically correct line, or kiss up
to the egotists in the department. Reams of research gets shelved
because the results aren't what the professor wanted. I've spent
enough time working in universities to know.
  #5   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2003, 08:43 AM
gregpresley
 
Posts: n/a
Default Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
hlink.net...
gregpresley wrote:

I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this
discussion,


Not relevant to a discussion of the author's blatant
poltical bias, which shows up not only in the book in
question but throughout her other books and her
institutional affiliations.


We were discussing her conclusion, based on copious scientific research,
that a diet without meat can satisfy the essential nutritional requirements,
and since she did NOT advocate a VEGAN diet which avoids milk and eggs, but
instead included them, every nutrient is completely covered by her diet.
Bob Petersen attacked her as a left-wing kook and you fell right in line,
without ever addressing that conclusion. A little problem with reading
comprehension here, I fear....since her politics are not at all germane to
her conclusion, in spite of your blathering unsupported comments. There is
NO scientific research that contradicts her conclusion, which, however, you
were too lazy to discover on your own.

as well as those of your cohorts


Misuse of the word "cohort", reflecting your appalling
ignorance.


Cohort: n. 2. A band or group 3. A companion or follower

When two people spout virtually the same nonsense or end up echoing one
another's arguments in close succession on the internet, they can easily be
said to be members of a cohort, and when others join in with similar
philosophies but direct their responses to unrelated elements of the thread,
they can said to be in a cohort as well. That cohort will, of necessity, be
a different one, but one person can be a member of more than one, just as I
may be a member of the opera orchestra and a member of a rock band. In this
case, there are a number of cohorts in which your views give you membership
participating in this thread.
Perhaps
you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced to disregard everything

you
write, as meaningless drivel coming out of a well of ignorance.


So: you're happy to indicate that you are a raging,
dogmatic leftist, too.


I'm happy that your failure to supply credentials indicated a lack of same
which might give you any credibility, so that I can abandon this thread to
you, secure in the knowledge that you have nothing of value to say.





  #6   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2003, 08:43 AM
gregpresley
 
Posts: n/a
Default Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)


"Ayrshire" wrote in message
...
"gregpresley" wrote in
:

I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials
in this discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to
dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of
her book. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced
to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming
out of a well of ignorance.

.........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my
post in the long unsupported rant by the following poster......

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in




No, Johnathan, what you are unwilling to do is accept Greg's
political analysis.


Excuse me, I wasn't aware that I had supplied a political analysis. Perhaps
you'll cut and paste something to show me that I did and merely forgot about
it.......


  #7   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2003, 06:37 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)

gregpresley wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
hlink.net...

gregpresley wrote:


I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials in this
discussion,


Not relevant to a discussion of the author's blatant
poltical bias, which shows up not only in the book in
question but throughout her other books and her
institutional affiliations.



We were discussing her conclusion, based on copious scientific research,
that a diet without meat can satisfy the essential nutritional requirements,


No, we were not, dummy. That conclusion is not
challenged, and is not important; of course one can
meet "essential nutritional requirements" via a diet
that doesn't contain any meat or other animal products.

What we're talking about is her politically motivated
MORAL PRESCRIPTION that we "ought" to follow such a
diet. Get a ****ing clue, will you?

and since she did NOT advocate a VEGAN diet which avoids milk and eggs, but
instead included them, every nutrient is completely covered by her diet.


That's lovely. Now, WHY is she advocating such a diet?

Bob Petersen attacked her as a left-wing kook


Correctly and with full justification. If she wants to
follow such a diet, she is free to do so. For her to
be prescribing it for others is NOT based in science in
any way; it's based in moral prescription, an ENTIRELY
unscientific endeavor. HER prescriptions originate in
her leftist political sentiment.

and you fell right in line,


No, I reached the conclusion years ago.

without ever addressing that conclusion.


The conclusion is trivial, and is not what she is
really on about. You know this; you're dissembling.

A little problem with reading
comprehension here, I fear


No, you know and fear nothing of the kind. Instead,
what you fear is that her moralizing political
prescriptions are being rubbished. You fear that with
good reason: they are, and the basis for rubbishing
them is rock solid.

....since her politics are not at all germane to
her conclusion,


Since her politics is EVERYTHING, and since the
conclusion is scientifically uninteresting...

in spite of your blathering unsupported comments. There is
NO scientific research that contradicts her conclusion,


Strawman.

which, however, you
were too lazy to discover on your own.


No, liar; I did discover it on my own. I also
discovered that it is uninteresting, and not what she
is really all about.

You stupid fat ****: she is taking a scientifically
uninteresting conclusion, and using it as a flimsy
basis for a totalitarian political prescription.


Misuse of the word "cohort", reflecting your appalling
ignorance.



Cohort: n. 2. A band or group 3. A companion or follower


3.a. is incorrect.

  #8   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2003, 07:45 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)

Ayrshire wrote:
"gregpresley" wrote in
:


I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials
in this discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to
dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of
her book. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced
to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming
out of a well of ignorance.

.........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my
post in the long unsupported rant by the following poster......

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in





No, Johnathan, what you are unwilling to do is accept Greg's
political analysis.


You seem to have Greg and me mixed up; further evidence
for that is that you misattribute his comment about
universities only hiring highly credentialed persons to me.

Greg is not offering a political analysis; I am. Greg
is refusing to accept mine, as he is cynically trying
to pretend that "Diet For a Small Planet" is about
science, not polemical agenda advancement. He is
wrong. The "scientific" conclusion offered in "DFSP"
is unimportant to the point of being utterly trivial.
What IS important in it is Lappe's sense - her
UNSCIENTIFIC, ideologically driven sense - that hunger
in the world is due to "injustice", and that the
"injustice" is due to the market.

Quite unintentionally, she points out that world
hunger, to the extent it is driven by the misguided
protectionist agricultural policies of the developed
western nations, is caused by a *refusal* to let the
market work. The subsidies she decries, and that I
decry, are the result of ANTI-market forces at work.

Lappe attributes the existence of hunger to an
economy that fails to offer everyone opportunity.


Which is at least partly a bogus charge, and is
motivated solely by her leftist ideology. Her
scientific credentials, whatever they are, do not
entitle her to make such a judgment.

She fails to note
that the majority of these economies are really socialist
dictatorships or countries where islam is the dominant culture.


Lappe is more interested in criticizing, polemically
and NOT scientifically, the market economies of the
developed nations.

Poverty & food is used as a weapon to keep enough people enslaved to
the leadership of the country in order to maintain control. Sudan,
Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Bangladesh & Cuba are examples of the control
& cultures I speak about.


If you go to the page of Lappe's UNscientifically
founded, leftist political agenda-motivated
organization to which I earlier provided a link,
www.foodfirst.org, you will find that they are FULL of
effusive praise for Cuba. In other words, we are
dealing here with garden variety 1960s activists who
don't realize they LOST.

She talks about the plight of landless and
land-poor people and the need for land reform. Of course there is no
definition of land reform, which usually means taking land away from
owners to give someone else. this is another means of control like
the Mexican revloution's land reform and subsequent 70 years of one
party rule.
The nonsense you refer to


You mean the nonsense the ardent leftist Greg refers to...

about universities only hiring highly
credentialed persons is laughable. One doesn't get tenure in a
university unless they toe the politically correct line, or kiss up
to the egotists in the department. Reams of research gets shelved
because the results aren't what the professor wanted. I've spent
enough time working in universities to know.


  #9   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2003, 07:45 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)

Ayrshire wrote:
"gregpresley" wrote in
:


I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials
in this discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to
dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of
her book. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced
to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming
out of a well of ignorance.

.........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my
post in the long unsupported rant by the following poster......

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in





No, Johnathan, what you are unwilling to do is accept Greg's
political analysis.


You seem to have Greg and me mixed up; further evidence
for that is that you misattribute his comment about
universities only hiring highly credentialed persons to me.

Greg is not offering a political analysis; I am. Greg
is refusing to accept mine, as he is cynically trying
to pretend that "Diet For a Small Planet" is about
science, not polemical agenda advancement. He is
wrong. The "scientific" conclusion offered in "DFSP"
is unimportant to the point of being utterly trivial.
What IS important in it is Lappe's sense - her
UNSCIENTIFIC, ideologically driven sense - that hunger
in the world is due to "injustice", and that the
"injustice" is due to the market.

Quite unintentionally, she points out that world
hunger, to the extent it is driven by the misguided
protectionist agricultural policies of the developed
western nations, is caused by a *refusal* to let the
market work. The subsidies she decries, and that I
decry, are the result of ANTI-market forces at work.

Lappe attributes the existence of hunger to an
economy that fails to offer everyone opportunity.


Which is at least partly a bogus charge, and is
motivated solely by her leftist ideology. Her
scientific credentials, whatever they are, do not
entitle her to make such a judgment.

She fails to note
that the majority of these economies are really socialist
dictatorships or countries where islam is the dominant culture.


Lappe is more interested in criticizing, polemically
and NOT scientifically, the market economies of the
developed nations.

Poverty & food is used as a weapon to keep enough people enslaved to
the leadership of the country in order to maintain control. Sudan,
Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Bangladesh & Cuba are examples of the control
& cultures I speak about.


If you go to the page of Lappe's UNscientifically
founded, leftist political agenda-motivated
organization to which I earlier provided a link,
www.foodfirst.org, you will find that they are FULL of
effusive praise for Cuba. In other words, we are
dealing here with garden variety 1960s activists who
don't realize they LOST.

She talks about the plight of landless and
land-poor people and the need for land reform. Of course there is no
definition of land reform, which usually means taking land away from
owners to give someone else. this is another means of control like
the Mexican revloution's land reform and subsequent 70 years of one
party rule.
The nonsense you refer to


You mean the nonsense the ardent leftist Greg refers to...

about universities only hiring highly
credentialed persons is laughable. One doesn't get tenure in a
university unless they toe the politically correct line, or kiss up
to the egotists in the department. Reams of research gets shelved
because the results aren't what the professor wanted. I've spent
enough time working in universities to know.




  #10   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2003, 08:25 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)

Ayrshire wrote:

"gregpresley" wrote in
:


I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials
in this discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to
dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of
her book. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced
to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming
out of a well of ignorance.

.........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my
post in the long unsupported rant by the following poster......

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in





No, Johnathan,


See my other reply about mixing me up with Greg. In
this reply, I am telling you I don't appreciate your
****ing around with the group headers.



  #11   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2003, 08:35 PM
Charles Scripter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)

Jonathan Ball wrote:

(Never mind her 15 honorary doctorates, including one from

University of Michigan).


Honorary doctorates?! You must be kidding. Those ARE
handed out for various types of kookiness, and academia
just LOVES leftwing kookiness. Christall****ingmighty,
you dumbass, the "Rev." Al Sharpton has an honorary
doctorate!


Mike Tyson (da big, dumb boxer) has an honary doctorate...

--
Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues
  #12   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2003, 08:38 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)

Ayrshire wrote:

"gregpresley" wrote in
:


I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials
in this discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to
dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of
her book. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced
to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming
out of a well of ignorance.

.........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my
post in the long unsupported rant by the following poster......

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in





No, Johnathan,


See my other reply about mixing me up with Greg. In
this reply, I am telling you I don't appreciate your
****ing around with the group headers.

  #13   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2003, 08:38 PM
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)

Ayrshire wrote:

"gregpresley" wrote in
:


I'm sorry if I missed your science/biology/nutrition credentials
in this discussion, as well as those of your cohorts who chose to
dismiss the conclusions of this author without reading a word of
her book. Perhaps you'd care to share? Otherwise, I'll be forced
to disregard everything you write, as meaningless drivel coming
out of a well of ignorance.

.........Still waiting, didn't get any response to this part of my
post in the long unsupported rant by the following poster......

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in





No, Johnathan,


See my other reply about mixing me up with Greg. In
this reply, I am telling you I don't appreciate your
****ing around with the group headers.

  #14   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2003, 08:38 PM
Charles Scripter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)

Jonathan Ball wrote:

(Never mind her 15 honorary doctorates, including one from

University of Michigan).


Honorary doctorates?! You must be kidding. Those ARE
handed out for various types of kookiness, and academia
just LOVES leftwing kookiness. Christall****ingmighty,
you dumbass, the "Rev." Al Sharpton has an honorary
doctorate!


Mike Tyson (da big, dumb boxer) has an honary doctorate...

--
Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues
  #15   Report Post  
Old 20-12-2003, 08:38 PM
Charles Scripter
 
Posts: n/a
Default Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements)

Jonathan Ball wrote:

(Never mind her 15 honorary doctorates, including one from

University of Michigan).


Honorary doctorates?! You must be kidding. Those ARE
handed out for various types of kookiness, and academia
just LOVES leftwing kookiness. Christall****ingmighty,
you dumbass, the "Rev." Al Sharpton has an honorary
doctorate!


Mike Tyson (da big, dumb boxer) has an honary doctorate...

--
Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues


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 08:08 PM
Extreme left-wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) Jonathan Ball Gardening 17 21-12-2003 05:42 PM
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency...?) Rico X. Partay Gardening 5 19-12-2003 02:32 AM
Right wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) gregpresley Edible Gardening 0 18-12-2003 07:03 AM
Right wing kookiness (was Self-Suffiency Acreage Requirements) gregpresley Gardening 0 18-12-2003 07:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2021 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017