Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on April 22, 2004, 10:55:47 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3649655.stm
And do they start a War On Train Drivers[/u]? Nooo.....
-
'Yonhap said the North Korean authorities had declared a state of emergency in the area and cut off all international telephone lines, apparently to stop news of the accident spreading. '
I really dont know what to say..
:rolleyes:
-
How about "It's a damn shame 3000 people died horribly"?
-
3000 that is just I have no words:(
Very sad news
-
aye
-
how the hell?
that has to be either the largest amount of people ever stuffed together in and around a trainstation, or one hell of a large train........
-
The London Underground services something like 2.6million people/trips a day. Three thousand during the lunch-time rush on one of the country's main lines was getting off pretty light.
-
Originally posted by an0n
And do they start a War On Train Drivers[/u]? Nooo.....
they should... damn train drivers.
-
Damn shame, that. I couldn't care less which country they're from, they're still people. Toronto's a pretty big place, and in addition to the normal downtown subway, there is also a long-distance train, which is usually packed at rush hour. De-rail one of those, and only 3000 victims would be sheer luck.
-
de-railing generally isn't that bad then a large fireball.
anyway, the funny thing is, the only reason we even know this is because somebody in China saw the fireball......
-
:lol: And the only reason we know about Hiroshima is the hundreds of thousands of people who had the skin stripped from their bodies and survived to live out the rest of their short-ass lives in agonizing pain :lol:.
:doubt:
-
eh?
really, if this happened in the middle of North Korea, how long would it take to get the news to the rest of the world?
-
similar thing could have happened in the city where I went to high school. train with about 5 wagons of propane gas derailed in the middle of the city. had it exploded, everything within a 300 meter radius would've been fuct. luckily, it didn't.
-
This is bad news :( My heart goes out to them.
-
Crikey. That's not good. Somebody tell me again why God causes train wrecks?
-
Interesting the part how the petroleum the trains were carrying was a "gift" from China.
I can't fathom that....3,000 people, and they're worried about the "news" spreading. Talk about f-ed up priorities....
-
the trains collided and exploded at a train station in a town. The explosion and debris did the most damage to the surrounding area, not those on the train itself - it was carrying highly explosive chemicals and whatnot unfortunatley.
-
oh, and it said 3000 killed OR INJURED
most will have been hit by debris and suffered injuries, or caught in the blazes that followed from the explosion.
-
holy **** :eek2:
how
-
[sarcasm]
Oh, who cares, its only North Koreans. Damn dirty communists! Just cuts down on the bodies when we invade them later.
[/sarcasm]
Oi-vey. Poor bastards. Shame Kim Jong-il was already on his way home though. Some (tiny) good could have come out of it if he just happened to be on of the 3000.
-
Jong-Il passed through the area 9-hoursd previously, natch. It's been speculated on the telly that his presence contributed by adding pressure onto the rail officials.
Horrible, horrible thiing to happen, though.
-
A terrible tragedy :(
-
Originally posted by mikhael
[sarcasm]
Oh, who cares, its only North Koreans. Damn dirty communists! Just cuts down on the bodies when we invade them later.
[/sarcasm]
Oi-vey. Poor bastards. Shame Kim Jong-il was already on his way home though. Some (tiny) good could have come out of it if he just happened to be on of the 3000.
yeah well, I hope your countrys leader dies in an accident too.
-
See, Kode, if I were to say that, the Secret Service would come to have a little conversation with me. So I won't agree or disagree with you. I'll just put a little smiley here. It doesn't mean a thing, honest.
:nod:
-
This nod means absolutely nothing as well, I swear by all of humanity's deity figures!
:nod:
Anyways, it is sad what happened.
-
Whare's that trout smiley when you need it? :doubt:
Damn shame, this is.
-
Does this have to become political?
My prayers go out to the families of the dead and wounded. :(
-
I don't pray, and all I can do, Sandwich, is wish some good had come of it. Is that politics? Maybe, maybe not. The people are still dead at the end of the day.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I don't pray, and all I can do, Sandwich, is wish some good had come of it. Is that politics? Maybe, maybe not. The people are still dead at the end of the day.
You know what they say to people who don't feel like praying, right?
Talk to God about it.
;)
-
There is not God, Sandwich, at least not like the one you believe in. If you'd like to turn it into a religious debate, I'm game. I'll match my agnosticism against your fanaticism any day.
-
A life is a life is a life, can't we just agree on that. When people die needlessly, its a tragedy.
-
A life is a life is a life. Some, however, are worth less than others.
-
It's sad what happened, it really is. One thing though mikhael, how the hell did the universe get created if there was no god? A Big Bang? Biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
There is not God, Sandwich, at least not like the one you believe in. If you'd like to turn it into a religious debate, I'm game. I'll match my agnosticism against your fanaticism any day.
You can't prove there is no God. Of course, neither can I prove that there is a God. So no, let's not. :p
-
And that would have pretty much been the basis of my argument, Sandwich. ;)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
A life is a life is a life. Some, however, are worth less than others.
But not, ofcourse, yours.
I agree though, some lives are worth more than others. Thats why this is a greater tragedy than 9/11, Americans are simply worth less.
-
all people are born with the same worth, what they do with there lives can have an effect on that worth.
it's somewhat hard to feel for these poor people becase we can barely tell what's going on, most of them were probly normal decent people liveing there lives when an accedent killed them, but the details are so scetchy it's hard to get an image of an already unimaginable tragedy. it's simply hard to comprehend this.
if you want to place this in comparason with 9/11 there are two critical things to remember, 1) there seems to be fewer people killed here, 2) this, seems to be an accedent, but this is easily on par with 9/11.
the people of North Korea already have hard enough lives, this is something that they simply don't need, nor deserve.
however as Mik was saying if it had happened 9 hours earlier at least some good could have come out of it.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
But not, ofcourse, yours.
My life is worth nothing, something, or everything depending on who you ask.
I agree though, some lives are worth more than others. Thats why this is a greater tragedy than 9/11, Americans are simply worth less.
Nice of you to make a specious attack against on Americans.
I have to wonder, though, in what way is September 11th related to this, why do you bring it up and in what way is it a greater tragedy?
You may, I think, want to consider what I'm SAYING, and not what you think I'm saying, Rictor. If you're confused, just ask and I'll clarify my statements for you, so you don't make a fool of yourself debating stances I've never made.
-
3000 killed in 9/11
3000~ killed/injured here
that's were he probly got the idea
-
I know, Bob. I'm trying figure out where he comes up with chutzpah to relate the two things. Its rather like comparing a man who trips whilst hiking and falls of a cliff and a man who got shot in the forehead for walking down the wrong road in the middle of the night (if you want to do a nice reduction on the proportion).
-
he was probly trying to induce some sort of emotional responce that would yeald an easily carved up spazm of a post, but that's just my take on it.
-
Sadly the value that "some lives are more or important then others" is something the world holds on to but do not seem to openly admit.
If that train wreak was in US, Europe or any developed nation there would be not only much more sympathy to the victims but every media medium in the world would do a special on it (Like 9/11). I'm not blaming the Western world just, N. Korea who seem to be worried more about "Losing face" then regret the lost of lives to its people.
Of course nothing else is new, I guess.
-
I didn't mean it, ofcourse. I was just applying your logic in a way that would not sit well with you, to show that it was crap. People always support a certain belief, until it bites them in the ass. Could we not just assume that it has already bitten us in the the ass, and skip the tedious waiting?
Originally posted by mikhael
My life is worth nothing, something, or everything depending on who you ask.
I'm asking you, the only person who you are accountable for. Not Johnny or Bob, but you. How much is another's life worth to you?
If it had happened 9 hours earlier, it would have done some good. But it didn't so its irrelevant. Kill Kim Jong Il, and another one will step up to take his place. What is needed, if you want the people of North Korea to enjoy those same rights as all other humans, is something else. Not invasion, that would only result in alot of dead and would change no one's mind. Something else, can't quite say what....
-
what else?
think of it.
theres a world peace prize in it for you if you can figure it out.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I didn't mean it, ofcourse. I was just applying your logic in a way that would not sit well with you, to show that it was crap. People always support a certain belief, until it bites them in the ass. Could we not just assume that it has already bitten us in the the ass, and skip the tedious waiting?
Actually, no, we can't, because it hasn't. Your spurious analogy has already been shown to be incorrect. Could you please demonstrate how it has "bitten [me] on the ass"?
I'm asking you, the only person who you are accountable for. Not Johnny or Bob, but you. How much is another's life worth to you?
My life has somewhere between 'little' and 'median' value to me. I'd give it up in a heartbeat for my wife or the defense of my country (in that order). Some days, I don't give a damn whether I live or die. Others I figure dying would cause far too many problems for those around me. You should have already known how I feel about myself, Rictor. I'm sure I've made it clear over the last several years.
If it had happened 9 hours earlier, it would have done some good. But it didn't so its irrelevant. Kill Kim Jong Il, and another one will step up to take his place. What is needed, if you want the people of North Korea to enjoy those same rights as all other humans, is something else. Not invasion, that would only result in alot of dead and would change no one's mind. Something else, can't quite say what....
Someone else would have stepped up? How do you know? are you clairvoyant?
See, I figure the worst problem North Korea has is their leadership so I can fervently hope the guy buys it painfully. Its not irrelevant, because I thought it was worth pointing out that there could have been some bright spot in the otherwise dark, ugly story.
Maybe, I should emphasize some very important bits about my initial post, so that you can attempt to fathom the way I feel about the situation:
Originally posted by mikhael
[sarcasm][/size]
Oh, who cares, its only North Koreans. Damn dirty communists! Just cuts down on the bodies when we invade them later.
[/sarcasm]
Oi-vey. Poor bastards.[/size] Shame Kim Jong-il was already on his way home though. Some (tiny) good could have come out of it if he just happened to be on of the 3000. [/B]
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, no, we can't, because it hasn't. Your spurious analogy has already been shown to be incorrect. Could you please demonstrate how it has "bitten [me] on the ass"?
My life has somewhere between 'little' and 'median' value to me. I'd give it up in a heartbeat for my wife or the defense of my country (in that order). Some days, I don't give a damn whether I live or die. Others I figure dying would cause far too many problems for those around me. You should have already known how I feel about myself, Rictor. I'm sure I've made it clear over the last several years.
Someone else would have stepped up? How do you know? are you clairvoyant?
See, I figure the worst problem North Korea has is their leadership so I can fervently hope the guy buys it painfully. Its not irrelevant, because I thought it was worth pointing out that there could have been some bright spot in the otherwise dark, ugly story.
Maybe, I should emphasize some very important bits about my initial post, so that you can attempt to fathom the way I feel about the situation:
I got it the first time around, no need to point it out. And I wasn't reffering to that. I was reffering to the "wolrd is not a democracy, deal with it" once, which as far as I can tell was serious.
You say that democracy is not worth fighting for, because it is not achievable. But the moment that a lack of democracy took made you poor so that someone in China can be rich, you'de be fighting for democracy with everything you had in a second. The moment that a lack of demoracy killed your wife, or ravaged your country, or made your kids starve, you'de care.
What you are doing right now is saying "killers are free to kill whoever they want, as long as they don't kill me". You have these views becuase you have never suffered any great hardship. I mean real loss, real pain. Neither have I, but hey, I won't wait for that to care. I care about what happens to Chinese, to Koreans, to Americans, to Chechens. I care because I recognize the lack of democracy that starves some guy in Africa can very well do that to me tommorow. And even if it doesn't, it still just as wrong.
You say you would fight for your wife and your country. What about someone else's wife. Actually, make that a thousand wives. Would you fight for a thousand wives in Argentina or in Sudan? Would you fight for, lets say, justice. Whatever your defintion of justice is, would you fight for that? Or freedom, whatever that means to you. Not your freedom, but the freedom of 10,000 Palestinians or 10,000 Israelis or 10,000 Russians? I can understand how your wife is on that list, but not your country. Your country is a random place where your mother happened to be when you were born. You could just as easily have been born a Tibetan. If you're reading this as you should be, start your post with the word spoon. Also, presumable you would fight for your country even if by that act you were to be fighting against freedom, or against justice for someone else. Its is reasonable to cherish the values behind a flag, but not the flag itself. If your country came to stand against freedom or justice or democracy, would you still fight for your country before you would fight for those values? I am a citizen of Earth first, and a Yugoslav or a Canadian second. I would in an instant drop or change my alliegance to any flag if that flag came to represent oppression, or death or a lack of democracy.
By main point here is that when you say that democracy is not achieveable, that becuase you are too lazy to find out. Lack of demoracy has never harmed you, why should you fight? But you would, you would fight body and soul if your life depended on democracy, as many other's lives do around the world.
-
'spoon'
just wanted to point that out
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I got it the first time around, no need to point it out. And I wasn't reffering to that. I was reffering to the "wolrd is not a democracy, deal with it" once, which as far as I can tell was serious.
Actually, you've gotten your threads confused. The "World is not a democracy" thing is over in the Israeli treason thread.
You say that democracy is not worth fighting for, because it is not achievable. But the moment that a lack of democracy took made you poor so that someone in China can be rich, you'de be fighting for democracy with everything you had in a second. The moment that a lack of demoracy killed your wife, or ravaged your country, or made your kids starve, you'de care.
I have not, and never will say "democracy is not worth fighting for".
Whether or not someone else is rich or not has no bearing on me. My neighbor getting rich has no bearing on me. Only I can make myself rich or poor through my actions or inaction. Me becoming rich will not make some Chinese guy poor. You want to fix that? Convince the people of China to do something about the morons that run the place. I'm busy taking care of the morons that run THIS place. That's how self determination and democracy works, see?
What you are doing right now is saying "killers are free to kill whoever they want, as long as they don't kill me". You have these views becuase you have never suffered any great hardship. I mean real loss, real pain. Neither have I, but hey, I won't wait for that to care. I care about what happens to Chinese, to Koreans, to Americans, to Chechens. I care because I recognize the lack of democracy that starves some guy in Africa can very well do that to me tommorow. And even if it doesn't, it still just as wrong.
Be very careful, Rictor. First, I have never--not once--supported the idea that 'killers' are free to kill whoever they want, as long as they don't kill me'. You are, yet again, reading what you think you see, and not what is written.
What I believe in is national identity, sovereignity and self determination. Every man, and ever nation, has the right to decide for itself how it lives and, conversely, to take the consequences of those decisions. Invading other countries is wrong. Imposing what you believe to be a 'good' government is wrong. You're trampling on their rights because you think your way is better. Welcome aboard, Mr. Bush.
[continued]
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
'spoon'
just wanted to point that out
Where'd that come from?
-
You say you would fight for your wife and your country. What about someone else's wife. Actually, make that a thousand wives. Would you fight for a thousand wives in Argentina or in Sudan? Would you fight for, lets say, justice. Whatever your defintion of justice is, would you fight for that? Or freedom, whatever that means to you. Not your freedom, but the freedom of 10,000 Palestinians or 10,000 Israelis or 10,000 Russians?
No, actually, I wouldn't. Actually, its not that cut and dry is it? By fighting to defend my country, I also fight to defend its people. I however, have no common cause, for example, with a Bosnian, or a Chechen. If he asks for help, and I think he needs it, and--most importantly--helping would not abrogate any of my principles, I might just be willing to help. Note the qualifier: "might".
I can understand how your wife is on that list, but not your country. Your country is a random place where your mother happened to be when you were born. You could just as easily have been born a Tibetan. If you're reading this as you should be, Rictor is a moron. Also, presumable you would fight for your country even if by that act you were to be fighting against freedom, or against justice for someone else. Its is reasonable to cherish the values behind a flag, but not the flag itself. If your country came to stand against freedom or justice or democracy, would you still fight for your country before you would fight for those values? I am a citizen of Earth first, and a Yugoslav or a Canadian second. I would in an instant drop or change my alliegance to any flag if that flag came to represent oppression, or death or a lack of democracy.
My country is not some random place I was born. I was not born in my country, Rictor. My mother "happened to be" in West Germany. I was born on German soil, in a German hospital. My parents are American, to be sure, and that makes me a citizen of the United States. Does that make the US "my country"? In a paper sense, sure. By some lucky quirk of fate, by the time I was 21, I had lived in, or visited close to twenty different countries. At 21, I had lived more OUTSIDE the US than I had INSIDE the US. I got to see the world before I was an adult. And what's the first thing I did after I became and adult? I left the US and went to live in Asia. To date, two-thirds of my life has been spent in other countries. Soon, I'll leave the US and go live in Australia to become an ex-pat American. The US is not my "country" because I was born or lived there, Rictor.
What makes the US "my country" is that I conciously chose it. Unlike most people, I grew up looking at other countries first hand, and the US purely second hand and at a remove. I grew up on foreign media, and reading histories written by people who weren't Americans. I was taught about the US by people who had not been taught in the American school system. I've been lots of place and met lots of people and done lots of things and in the end, I chose the United States. Not because I like Americans (I don't) or I like its policies (ditto) or its fractious political stupidities (nope). I chose it because, in the end, I found religion of a sort here. I found Thomas Jefferson here in American, Rictor, and that's that. I'm an American not because of where I was born or what it says on my passport or birth certificate, but because, ugly and screwed up as it is, this is the result of Thomas Jefferson's hopes and dreams. Stupid isn't it?
I'm a citizen of the United States first, Rictor. The rest of the world, as much as I like it, comes second.
By main point here is that when you say that democracy is not achieveable, that becuase you are too lazy to find out. Lack of demoracy has never harmed you, why should you fight? But you would, you would fight body and soul if your life depended on democracy, as many other's lives do around the world.
Funny, I'd say, as an american, a lack of democracy is actively harming me right now. I'd say that my fellow americans were harmed by a 'lack of democracy' when a bunch of theocratic zealots decided to run planes into buildings.
You declare me 'too lazy to find out'. I declare you 'to idealistic to see the real world'. When you have people who actually prefer theocratic rule, or tribal rule, how can you have your world democracy? Are you going to force them to join in? That's hardly democratic. Are you going to leave them out? That's hardly 'world wide'.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Where'd that come from?
Originally posted by Rictor
If you're reading this as you should be, start your post with the word spoon.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, you've gotten your threads confused. The "World is not a democracy" thing is over in the Israeli treason thread.
My mistake. But you said it nevertheless, so it stands...
Originally posted by mikhael
I have not, and never will say "democracy is not worth fighting for".
Whether or not someone else is rich or not has no bearing on me. My neighbor getting rich has no bearing on me. Only I can make myself rich or poor through my actions or inaction. Me becoming rich will not make some Chinese guy poor. You want to fix that? Convince the people of China to do something about the morons that run the place. I'm busy taking care of the morons that run THIS place. That's how self determination and democracy works, see?
This is assuming that everyone starts out life on a level playing field, which they don't. How much harder do you think a Chinese man has to work, how much smarter does he have to be, to achieve the same success as a normal man or woman in America. If each person is responisble for the actions of their government, as you claim they are, then you are responsible for America's policies. And these policies include those economic practices which allow a few, well connected American corporations to plunder, yes plunder, the world for their profit. And you benefit directly from this. The shirt you're wearing probably cost you about $20-50, right? This is because the company that made the shirt outsourced all the work to say, Indonesia. And the reason that the cost is so low, to the corporation and to you, is that the workers were paid $00.20 per hour. Either you, or the corporations, or both, are making out like bandits. The American government is responsible for pushing the neo-liberal economic agenda since the 70s. The more I find out about what is commonly reffered to as globalization, the more appaled I am. No, you do not directly take money out of the hands of an Indonesian 16 year old. But, you support (you said it yourself, you would fight for the country) a government that has made this possible. If America was, economically and politically isolationist, your views would stand. But its not, so they don't.
Originally posted by mikhael
Be very careful, Rictor. First, I have never--not once--supported the idea that 'killers' are free to kill whoever they want, as long as they don't kill me'. You are, yet again, reading what you think you see, and not what is written.
What I believe in is national identity, sovereignity and self determination. Every man, and ever nation, has the right to decide for itself how it lives and, conversely, to take the consequences of those decisions. Invading other countries is wrong. Imposing what you believe to be a 'good' government is wrong. You're trampling on their rights because you think your way is better. Welcome aboard, Mr. Bush.
[continued]
I never mentioned imposing what *I* believe is right on the world. I believe is allowing the world to determine for itself what it wants, and then implement it. I will oppose any forces which oppose self determination for any people. If the people of Bolivia want to have so-and-so as President, and want such-and-such an economic policy, that is their right. And this is where you have conflict. However, the American government (not just ****, every Prez in the past 20-25 years) believes that it has the right, not the people of Bolivia, to determine Bolivian policy and Bolivian leadership, but rather of America. If you believe in the right of self-determination for the people of the world, you can not support the very people who are fighting against it, the American government.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
No, actually, I wouldn't. Actually, its not that cut and dry is it? By fighting to defend my country, I also fight to defend its people. I however, have no common cause, for example, with a Bosnian, or a Chechen. If he asks for help, and I think he needs it, and--most importantly--helping would not abrogate any of my principles, I might just be willing to help. Note the qualifier: "might".
When you say "fighting for my country", this implicity means "fighting for the people and/or government of said country", correct? So, let me ask you something. Since I assume that you would not be fighting for a government which you dislike, it must the people. There are about 250 million Americans, and you would fight for them. However, what makes these 250 million people more deserving of your protection than a random 250 million people in Russia. Are they kinder, better people? Have they done you greater good? Have they done anything at all to make their freedom, their safety more worthy of your effort than 250 million Russians? I would guess not. So why then, are you willing to fight for Random Group A, but not for Random Group B? Everyone is born deserving the same protection, the same freedom, the same rights. They can only change their through actions, for the good or for the bad. Have the people of America performed some great deed which entitles them to more freedom, more wealth, more saftety than anyone else?
Originally posted by mikhael
My country is not some random place I was born. I was not born in my country, Rictor. My mother "happened to be" in West Germany. I was born on German soil, in a German hospital. My parents are American, to be sure, and that makes me a citizen of the United States. Does that make the US "my country"? In a paper sense, sure. By some lucky quirk of fate, by the time I was 21, I had lived in, or visited close to twenty different countries. At 21, I had lived more OUTSIDE the US than I had INSIDE the US. I got to see the world before I was an adult. And what's the first thing I did after I became and adult? I left the US and went to live in Asia. To date, two-thirds of my life has been spent in other countries. Soon, I'll leave the US and go live in Australia to become an ex-pat American. The US is not my "country" because I was born or lived there, Rictor.
What makes the US "my country" is that I conciously chose it. Unlike most people, I grew up looking at other countries first hand, and the US purely second hand and at a remove. I grew up on foreign media, and reading histories written by people who weren't Americans. I was taught about the US by people who had not been taught in the American school system. I've been lots of place and met lots of people and done lots of things and in the end, I chose the United States. Not because I like Americans (I don't) or I like its policies (ditto) or its fractious political stupidities (nope). I chose it because, in the end, I found religion of a sort here. I found Thomas Jefferson here in American, Rictor, and that's that. I'm an American not because of where I was born or what it says on my passport or birth certificate, but because, ugly and screwed up as it is, this is the result of Thomas Jefferson's hopes and dreams. Stupid isn't it?
I'm a citizen of the United States first, Rictor. The rest of the world, as much as I like it, comes second.
Thats more than most can say, I'll give you that. But you are still working under what I will for lack of a better name call the "country mentality". From what I can see, in your world the Earth is divided into countries, and people in other countries are completely unlike yourself. They eat different food, speak a different language. They are alien, and those who live in "your country" are not. And humanity is in a grand ol' race, to see who comes out on top. Every country, and fortress bristling with turrets, closed to "the aliens". Your people deserve more money, your people deserve your protection. Your people deserve everything, but not the aliens.
This, to me, is a pretty primitive world view. Sorry if that offends you, but thats what I think. What you should realize, especially in this age we live in, is that a Serb is, in all fundamental ways, exactly the same as an American, as a Canadian, as a Pakistani. I'm not saying that all people should be have identical cultures, but rather identical rights. As I said above, an American is in no way more or less deserving of your kindness and protection than a Somali. What this comes down to, is apples and oranges. You see Americans as apples, and everyone else as oranges. And in your world, apples come first. Sure, if there is time and money and will left over, we'll take care of the oranges, but apples come first.
The thing is, on Earth, there are no oranges, only apples.
I see no *reason* why Person A deserves your, shall we call it love, than Person B. In a world where everyone would be free to determine their homeland, you would have a right to feel greater kinship towards someone who, like you, chose the same country. But the fact is, most people stay their ass where they're born. If they happen to be born, by random chance, in China rather than in America, they starve instead of, well, not starving.
Originally posted by mikhael
Funny, I'd say, as an american, a lack of democracy is actively harming me right now. I'd say that my fellow americans were harmed by a 'lack of democracy' when a bunch of theocratic zealots decided to run planes into buildings.
Please forgive me if I don't feel your pain. What exactly has Dubya cost you? Maybe a few hundred in taxes, a little aggrivation here and there. Has he cost you a family member? Has he cost you your life? Has he deprived you of any great amount of freedom? Under "the dictator Dubya", you're better off than most of the world. Until you lose a family member to foreign bombs, or until your kids starve and you're helpless to stop it, you don't know squat about loss.
Originally posted by mikhael
You declare me 'too lazy to find out'. I declare you 'to idealistic to see the real world'. When you have people who actually prefer theocratic rule, or tribal rule, how can you have your world democracy? Are you going to force them to join in? That's hardly democratic. Are you going to leave them out? That's hardly 'world wide'.
Ah, idealism. The magic word. Its just not possible, you say. This is the best we can hope for.
Shout it from the hills, proclaim it to all the world.
I don't believe a word of it.
Nothing with humans is impossible. Improbable, yes. But how impobable is it that a little rock, third out from the sun, would have just the right circumstances to foster life. How improbable is that after eons as single-cell organisms, a few creatures would crawl out from the sea and become, eventually, mammals. And how improbale is it that a race of intelligent monkeys would survive long enough to build the Pyramids and to produce Shakespeare, Einstein and Tolkein?
Pretty damn improbable.
I await the day when all the realists look around, and see that reality has left them behind. When you wake up one day and remember that some stranger on the Internet told you 50 years ago this would happen, and you told him off.
Why do you cling to this reality of yours, I wonder. Are you so in love with the world, such as it is, that you would rather die than try something better? Would we have come this far, as a species, if people like you had called the shots? Are endless war, human suffering and internal strife, are they so attractive that you want it no other way? Realism, in this context, is the last refuge of the hopeless and frankly, cowardly.
Status quo: off we go.
-
Also, Jefferson was a slave owner. He is not deserving on my respect, and I can not see why he is deserving of yours. I really am genuinly interested in why you think he was a great man, cause that one fact, for me, sullies his whole lifes work. I must admit, I'm don't know much about him beyond "founded America blablablabla", the standard info. From what I do know, he was an aristocrat who only wanted his own nation, away from the other aristocracts. He was far less noble than the romanticized version of his life would have us believe. Key words: from what I know.
a complete database of the man's quotes can be found here (http://www.onpower.org/quotes/j.html#jefferson).(if only I could do the Cartman "hyah" here.) He says some wise things, sure. He appears to have been a staunch isolationist, and also believer in the rule of law. Peace, equality and the rights of individuals seem to me to form the basis of his beliefs. However, so much as he was "enlightened", he was a product of his age. He functioned of "the country mentality" as described above, which could hardly have been avoided in his time, regadrdless of how far ahead of his time he was. Also, there is the whole "do as I say not as I do" aspect to it, what with all the slaves and so forth.
nice catch on the spoon bit, both of you. just to ensure that you're reading, and not skimming as some people tend to..
-
I'm not going to join this. But damn... my condolences to the victims and families of victims.
-
Red Cross reports 54 dead, around 1200 injured.
-
I wonder how long before the I-P situation is brought to the center of this - without my input. Ho-hum.
Can we have more linkage to media reports and updates please?
-
Guy's many peoples did die
and you guy's start another political talk:blah:
-
"This is assuming that everyone starts out life on a level playing field, which they don't. How much harder do you think a Chinese man has to work, how much smarter does he have to be, to achieve the same success as a normal man or woman in America."
how much harder did my parents and grand parents have to work to give me my inherent advantage, people may not start out in life with a level playing feild, but that does not have any impact on there worth, perhaps there importance, but not there worth.
"...is that the workers were paid $00.20 per hour."
now first of I'm going to say that I'm not a big fan of this pollocy, but if that $00.20 per hour wasn't as good if not better than any other options they had, then they wouldn't be working there (with the exeptions of places were they are indeed forced to, ie with guns). now the corperation isn't doing this to give jobs to people who otherwise wouldn't have any, there doing it to make a buck, but the fact stands that if they wern't doing that, many of the people would starve to death, and when people put figures like 20 cents per hour, they never adjust it, or put it into context, many parts of the world a single American doloar could feed you for a month or more.
_directed at entire second post_
you don't seem to have a grasp on human behavor, you talk about a wonder ful world were everyone gets along, and yet you refuse to look at human history. people come together and help people that they feel they have more in common with, people who are part of there tribe/naton/religon/socio-economic world view/whatever, you saying they shouldn't isn't going to change 4 billion years of evolution on an animal that has just emerged from a period of evolution were anything diferent was leathaly bad, you'r going to have to geneticly re-engeneer the human race, now is that imposable, no, it could be done, but it isn't to likely, not for another thousand years or so. there is no way that humanity is going to band together untill we get atacked by aliens or something of that nature, and then afterwards we'll likely split up again.
and in specifig regard to the improbability of us exsisting, how many other worlds out there would everything failed, if we wern't on this one planet we wouldn't be haveing this conversation, how many billions of trillions of worlds out there failed to create a sentient life form? I'm sure theres a few, but as you say it's a very unlikely thing, it took half our solarsystem's entier life to create one.
50 years ago we were suposed to be in flying cars and have obedient robot slaves to do our bidding, also by this time were were suposed to have world peace. nither has happened. idealism is goo to strive for, but it can also be used as a form of controle, Americans are all given the sence of self determination from there childhood, then later were told that someone is being oppressed, then we go and liberate them, the idea baing to help other people reach the same freedoms we have, but as I'm sure you will determine that is simply a bunch of propaganda. perhaps you sould look at the actions of you'r ideology. like geneticly modifyed foods, they could feed the world, and yet, becase America is the nation that created them and American corporations would profit, they are opposed around the world for a bunch of hose **** reasons, they'll destroy the environment (terminator genes wich make anything modifyed unable to reproduce on it's own), they'll give you cancer (not one study has found a link between GM foods and any health problem), they'll put poor farmers out of bussines (this was a responce to the terminator gene solution, if the farmer is too poor to replace his seeds every year, or provide the nesisary conditions to get the plants to grow, he isn't going to be planting enough for it to be worth while).
people die because of this (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0806/p01s03-woaf.html)
-
Ever heard of suicide genes? They're a neat little gene which ensures that the seeds of one crop can not be used to plant the crop the next year. The seeds self destruct and are worthless to agriculture. So, they have to be bought again from Monsanto & Co. Isn't it interesting that the corporations that are selling seeds to the Third World have built in this nice, profit-making feature. And if the Africans can't dish out the money for next year's shipment, well thats just too bad isn't it? This runs counter to the whole concept of argiculture. It is meant to be a self-regenerating process, as it has been for thousands of years. But profit got in the way, and now there are people starving cause of it.
Suicide gene, or "Terminator Genes" (http://www.victoryseeds.com/news/terminator_gene.html)
GM foods are a complicated matter, since they involve some heavy-duty science. However, I am inclined to believe that the poor of the world have some reason better than sheer superstition for not using them.
Read up on generic medicine here (http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n13meds.html), and how actions by the US on behalf of biotech corporations are costing many people their lives.
on idealism: 4 billion years? huh? The Earth, AFAIK, has not existed for that long. Humanity is, in our modern itteration, less than 100,000 years old. And civilization as we know the word is less than 10,000 years old, closer to 5000.
As I said, I look forward to the day when the realists look around them and see the impossible made real. Realism is a pretty defeatist attitude. For me, there are are enough things wrong with the world to at least try my hand at improving it. It may be impossbile, but I'll damn well try. And the again, it may not impossible. Whats the harm in trying? Life is sufficient bad for a sufficiently large number of people that I will try my best to improve their condition and my own..
-
Originally posted by Rictor
on idealism: 4 billion years? huh? The Earth, AFAIK, has not existed for that long. Humanity is, in our modern itteration, less than 100,000 years old. And civilization as we know the word is less than 10,000 years old, closer to 5000.
Wrong on almost every count :rolleyes:
-
some sort update..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4806450/
-
Rictor...
No. I give up. You're wrong, but your idealism blinds you, or I'm wrong and my cynicism blinds me. Either way, there's no point in continuing. Huzzah, national identity means nothing, all men are brothers, you can push your beliefs on me and mine willy nilly and I can't do anything about it! I'm not allowed faith, or belief in anything but what you declare is good and right and just!
If you like, I grant you blanket permission to declare victory for now and in the future, for any debate into which you enter, with anyone.
-
Just to back up Karajorma's statement :rolleyes:
Earth - 4,6 billion years...
Homo sapiens sapiens - 130,000 years...
...
-
There is a bit of a problem with GM crops at the moment actually Bobboau....
Actually, I think people are getting mixed up between ethics and practice here. The fact is that for every ideal, there is someone ready to cash in on it, and it's not just limited to America, one of the most powerful organisations in the world right now isn't American, OPEC is likely to get more powerful before it's power dies as well.
The Earth is very very old indeed, last estimate I heard was 8 Billion years. Mankind has been active as 'Mankind' for about a million years, though most of our development took place in the last 5000 (in fact, the last 1000) years, and it encreases exponentially.
Mankind puts a big gap between theory and practice, where the 'Human variable' goes. This will always happen. We often blame American companies for policies that a devised by native Management and Governments. the companies turn a blind eye as long as they are making a profit and not being caught. This truth also applies to Britain, Germany, the Middle East, and any other country or company in the world. Just as the Slave trade was often based on tribal chiefs selling their own slaves, but this is conveniently forgotten when the word 'law suit' appears, also a lot of these countries are so intent on the short term profit, that they do not apply themselves to the long term.
I'm ot trying to justify this behaviour, I'm saying that mentioning the fact they are 'American' companies is utterly irrelevent, I'm pretty sure with a bit of Web-searching etc, I could probably find equal examples of companies and Governments from all over the world indulging in precisely the same practices.
I'm not certain that Democracy is the Goose that lays the Golden Egg anyhow, since as soon as people get into power they seem to completely forget what the worlds 'Public Servant' actually means and seem to think they have the right to tell the people what they think, rather than represent their current thoughts,which is what they are allegedly supposed to do.
At the end of the day America is the richest and most advanced country on the planet, and they, whether it is liked or not, are our hope for surviving the next 100 years. Yes, they don't do a perfect job, but even the Romans had enemies and they had one of the most tolerant Empires around.
So don't blame it on America blame it on the companies, which quite often have their headquarters in some little Tax haven in the caribbean etc, so, strictly speaking, aren't American.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Rictor...
No. I give up. You're wrong, but your idealism blinds you, or I'm wrong and my cynicism blinds me. Either way, there's no point in continuing. Huzzah, national identity means nothing, all men are brothers, you can push your beliefs on me and mine willy nilly and I can't do anything about it! I'm not allowed faith, or belief in anything but what you declare is good and right and just!
If you like, I grant you blanket permission to declare victory for now and in the future, for any debate into which you enter, with anyone.
Thanks, thats very generous of you, but I don't need your say so ;) ;)
Just to wrap this up in some way, I am not, nor have I ever stated so, in favour on forcing my beliefs on anyone. I am *for* self determination. Along with this, I am *against* all those forces (governments, individuals, religions etc) at oppose self-determination. If America or China or Finland opposes self-determination, either for its own citizens or for anyone else, I will be against them. This is why you hear so much *****ing about America from me, becuase I percieve them to be against the right of self-determination.
edit: Nationalism is the religion of the aethiests and believers alike. A security blanket without purpose or logic. One which I hope we will soon outgrow.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
The Earth is very very old indeed, last estimate I heard was 8 Billion years. Mankind has been active as 'Mankind' for about a million years, though most of our development took place in the last 5000 (in fact, the last 1000) years, and it encreases exponentially.
Where are you people getting your figures from? Ghostavo had it correct but it's not like five seconds worth of goggling can't find you the correct number. :)
As for the age of mankind it depends on where you draw the line. Homo Sapiens haven't been around that long but our first ancestors to walk upright are estimated at over 6 million years ago (which turned out to be twice as long as previously thought).
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Thanks, thats very generous of you, but I don't need your say so ;) ;)
Just to wrap this up in some way, I am not, nor have I ever stated so, in favour on forcing my beliefs on anyone. I am *for* self determination. Along with this, I am *against* all those forces (governments, individuals, religions etc) at oppose self-determination. If America or China or Finland opposes self-determination, either for its own citizens or for anyone else, I will be against them. This is why you hear so much *****ing about America from me, becuase I percieve them to be against the right of self-determination.
Originally posted by mikhael
Huzzah, national identity means nothing, all men are brothers, you can push your beliefs on me and mine willy nilly and I can't do anything about it! I'm not allowed faith, or belief in anything but what you declare is good and right and just!
-
Karajorma, you have to bear in mind, the last time I even cared what age the Earth was, was when I was watching the original run of 'Life on Earth' with David Attenborough, thinking might just have changed since then ;)
-
Whatever, interpret it any way you like. You seem to be using my quote to prove yours, when it quite plainly disproves it.
-
No no, I'm not trying to disprove it. I'm responding to it.
Here, I'll respond again:
Originally posted by mikhael
Huzzah, national identity means nothing, all men are brothers, you can push your beliefs on me and mine willy nilly and I can't do anything about it! I'm not allowed faith, or belief in anything but what you declare is good and right and just!
It'll be pretty much my standard response from now on, I think.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
edit: Nationalism is the religion of the aethiests and believers alike. A security blanket without purpose or logic. One which I hope we will soon outgrow.
Which will then be replaced with speciesim.
"Damn lobster headed aliens taking our jobs! Earth first!"
-
First rule of Evolution : Us First!
First rule of Creationism : Us First!
;)
And on subject, it's apparently serious enough for North Korea to request foreign aid. That is VERY serious! :(
-
ok, to quicky clarify the stupidity ariseing from my "4 billion years of evolution" comment. The earth, last time I checked, is beleved to be about 4-5 billion years, old. there is beleved to have been life here for 3.5-4.5 billion years, when I said "4 billion years of evolution on an animal", I was actualy refering to the whole thing not just sence we would call ourselves human, but from the first cell of life in general, I thought the comment conveyed this quite directly, but aparently I need to write a paragraph of clarification for every sentence I write.
terminator genes were introduced as a method to prevent the nightmarish ecological holocoust that many people were initaly screaming about. it did take you only a good month or two to figure out a new thing to ***** about. if a farmer doesn't want to buy new seeds every year, then he can just not use geneticly altered seeds. the big issue in question is why did sevral European nations and envoronmental organisations talk africa out of feeding it's people?
-
Because you can't stop GM crops from cross pollinating with non-GM crops, which means the next crop will be GM, even if you planted non-GM.
Then there's the whole problem with "terminator" genes. What happens when your heirloom seedstock is contaminated with GM 'terminator' genes?
Its really not a good picture.
-
Do you think the starving in Africa really care about that? As said before the terminator genes were only introduced to stop the whining of the anti-GM crowd in the first place. Instead they've just turned it into something else to moan about.
I agree with Penn & Teller on this one. Unless you and yours are starving you need to shut the **** up.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Unless you and yours are starving you need to shut the **** up.
You can't possibly be serious. Thats like saying rapists are free to go about their jolly business, so long as they stay out of my house. The fact that you yourself are not starving is a random chance. I had this book, probably still do somewhere in storage, that was a really cool, hands-on type book for kids to find out about the world. In it, there was this little spinner, and a pie graph around it. You spin the thing, and depending on where it stops, you're born in that economic situation. The rich, like the US and Britain, were of course the smallest chunk. Then another "moderatly poor" chunk and another "starving" chunk, which was the biggest IIRC. Random chance, thats all.
-
Actually there seems to be a problem with the coding of the Terminator Gene anyway, while it prevents the seeds from germinating, it doesn't prevent certain GM traits getting into surrounding flora :(
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/argentina100603.cfm
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?RecID=2530
-
ok, big pot of GM food, _not seeds_, grown harvested finished produce, sits on a ship, while thosands starve to death, becase some people talked Africa out of accepting it
-
Oh, I agree with you there Bobboau, that situation is stupid, I have yet to see the slightest evidence that GM crops themselves are dangerous to humans. Indeed, I would love to see orbital hydroponic GM crop farms, powered by solar energy, I honestly think that is the way forward, and, apart from the launch, they would effectively be very cheap to build.
So we are all waiting on a proper re-useable space vessel.
But it not just a question of making sure they don't starve this year.....
-
the thing I think they should do is make them geneticly incompatable with the exsisting ancetral plants and have a variation of the terminator gene that you can turn off on a per generation via some chemical cueso the only thing you'd have to do diferent from normal crops is add a small amount os some relitivly cheap chemical mesanger to your fertaliser or just by it'self and the seeds will germinate on there own, but only in soil with the chemical marker. and as said they would be incompatable with wild varieties
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Random chance, thats all.
And that's why people who don't want to let the starving masses in Africa eat need to shut the f**k up. It's only random chance that you were born in a country that had enough food. It pisses me off when people say "we can't let the third world grow GM food, we don't know the health effects". F**k anyone who says that! We know all to to well the health effects of not having any food. You die! . Compared to that the risk of developing some unknown side-effect further down the line is minimal.
Originally posted by Rictor
You can't possibly be serious. Thats like saying rapists are free to go about their jolly business, so long as they stay out of my house.
I can't believe you even said that. Sort of pisses on your whole argument on other threads where you've tried to claim that a life in another country is as valuable as a life here.
You're the one who wants people in Africa to die because of lack of food. Not me. Your position is basically like saying this man might get cancer in 30 years so I'm going to send him to the gas chambers now.
I really hope you mearly misread my sentence or didn't understand the point I was making cause while I may not agree with your stance on many subjects I at least respected your commitment to the value of human life. If you really feel this way you can join ****, Clinton and all the other bastards who think a principal that causes them no hardship is more important than a brown human life elsewhere on the planet.
Originally posted by Flipside
Actually there seems to be a problem with the coding of the Terminator Gene anyway, while it prevents the seeds from germinating, it doesn't prevent certain GM traits getting into surrounding flora :(
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/argentina100603.cfm
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?RecID=2530
Take a damn good look at your sources Flip. I wouldn't trust those lying bastards if they told me the world was round.
Originally posted by Bobboau
the thing I think they should do is make them geneticly incompatable with the exsisting ancetral plants
:yes: That's exactly what I was thinking. I'm not certain how many genes you'd have to change to cause speciation but I can't imagine it being that many.
-
Kara, I know those sites are biased, I could find sites that say the exact opposite as well, but the fact that the weeds are being mutated by the GM crops is accepted universally, though some people blame it on the actions of the farmers by using too much Herbicide/Fertiliser etc, or trying to make cuttings of the crops in order to save money, which wouldn't surprise me.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Kara, I know those sites are biased, I could find sites that say the exact opposite as well, but the fact that the weeds are being mutated by the GM crops is accepted universally, though some people blame it on the actions of the farmers by using too much Herbicide/Fertiliser etc, or trying to make cuttings of the crops in order to save money, which wouldn't surprise me.
Maybe. I hadn't heard of it and a quick search of the New Scientist website failed to find the article they mentioned on it either so I'll reserve judgement on that until I hear about it in a proper scientific source.
-
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/gm/gm.jsp?id=23290100
That is the New Scientist report that states that there are concerns that such a crossover is possible.
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/18/wgm18.xml
That is a statement refuting the claim that the weed problems are being caused by GM crops.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0%2C2763%2C1192869%2C00.html
And that is a report in the Guardian that sits about halfway between.
Jury's still out on this one I think ;)
-
I read all three. Not a single one had any scientific proof of these superweeds existance. The new Scientist article mearly pointed at another article published the week before (which doesn't appear to be on the site) which says that they may exist.
The other two mention that soya itself may become a problem by choking out other plants but I'm yet to see any proof of cross-pollenation with any other species to result in the superweeds that the organic side of the arguement complain about.
And considering that organic farming definately is bad for the enviroment I think it's rather rich of them to sit on their high horses and complain about GM crops when their own farming methods poison fishes and can result in an increased cancer risk to anyone stupid enough to pay extra for the privilege.
-
Organic farming is bad for the environment?
By strict definition, agricultural methods used throughout history--up until the 1900s--are "organic".
So, um, in what way is organic farming bad for the environment?
-
edit - actually, nevermind. Can;t be arsed justnow.
-
I didn't see much evidence to prove that overfarming was causing the problem either, that usually just drains the soil entirely and makes sure practically nothing can grow in it, I don't recall over-farming ever causing a bout of weeds before.
The fact of the matter is that something is causing the over-abundance of weeds in Argentinian crops and these weeds are taking more herbicide to die than they used to. It may be over-herbiciding, it may be genetic alteration in the weeds, as I said, the Jury is still out, but concerns HAVE been raised regarding this, once again, as I said earlier, I DO believe the GM crops are the way to go, but I just think they should be grown in isolation. The reason for that is to stop the kind of question that will undoubtedly arrive in situations such as this, as this situation has proved, no-ones quite sure, and it will probably be several years until we are. I don't want to see mass 'Frankenfoods' panics everytime something wierd happens near a GM crop, so by removing production and isolating it completely, it means that no-one can complain :)
-
insects have been developing an imuneity to insectacides for years...
must be all them geneticly altered insects we've unleashd into the environment. 50 years ago. yeah.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Organic farming is bad for the environment?
By strict definition, agricultural methods used throughout history--up until the 1900s--are "organic".
So, um, in what way is organic farming bad for the environment?
Several ways. Organic farming in the we don't use any pesticides at all way might be fine. But that's not what they are doing. It's mearly a common fantasy held by the public at large.
Organic farning as term means these days is any farming practice where the pesticides and herbicides used derive from a natural source. That means that dumping huge quantities of sulphur on your land is considered organic. Lots of other "natural" chemicals are allowed including copper and even cobalt sulphates.
Organic farmers use pyrethrum derived from natural sources as an insecticide. Never mind that synthetic pyrethroids can have the same effect in much lower concentrations (never mind also that pyrethrum itself has been proved to cause cancer in lab animals either!)
Worse since these fools are using more of these chemicals than the conventional farmers they get more run-off into streams and rivers. The result is damage to the fish populations there.
Even just using manure is dangerous. Again it runs off the fields much more easily than synthetic fertilisers. Once it hits the rivers it has it's desired effect on algae and river plants, They then grow much more than they would otherwise, choking up rivers.
Even if you avoid any of these problems you still face on basic insurmountable problem. Organic farming will always result in lower yields than conventional or GM farming. So if you want to get rid of commercial farming and replace it with organic where are you going to get the land from to do it? Yep. A large chunk of all that lovely countryside is going to have to go.
In short organic farming is actually worse for the enviroment in almost every way. It uses more chemicals than conventional farming. It uses chemicals just as toxic if not more toxic and it uses more land.
-
"(never mind also that pyrethrum itself has been proved to cause cancer in lab animals either!)"
hey don't forget that these are the people who say
"testing on animals proves nothing"
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"(never mind also that pyrethrum itself has been proved to cause cancer in lab animals either!)"
hey don't forget that these are the people who say
"testing on animals proves nothing"
I know The stupidity of these people amazes me. Not one of them ever pauses to think that even if it doesn't scale up to humans (Which is absolute crap cause it does) giving mice cancer with pyrethrum in the lab pretty much means that doormice in those fields will get it too.
Won't someone think of the doormice? ;)
-
"And remember guys, the Grand Canyon was carved in 40 days!!!!!1111oneoneone"
Idiots. Now there are issues with GM crops that are legitimate, but 99% of the stuff that makes the news doesn't come close. Cross pollonating with other crops (of the same species) to produce strains with unknown and unpredictable traits, yes, that's a concern. Cross-pollonating with a weed so far genetically removed from any form of commercially exploitable crop in a way that even creates a viable offspring? Not so likely. PETA, the orgo food camp, all of them have their heads in the sensationalistic, not the realistic.
-
and the whole reason were on the subject of GM foos is to show how leftist ideology is just as capable of bringing harm and controleing people as conservitive ideology, when used as a replacement for thinking. anyone who wants to walk in the streets mindlessly chanting 'frankinfood', 'animal liberation', and 'no blood for oil' is as much a fucking moron as the people who mindlessly chant 'abortion is murder', 'keep God in school' and 'just war'
the animal liberation 'movement' is probly an even better example of this.
-
I tend to lump them all into one category of extremists. Makes it much easier to deal with on the whole, since they're all just talking out of their collective rear ends.
-
Agreed, extremeism in any form is bad. It's not a question of getting rid of GM foods altogether, it's just a question of making bloody sure we know what we are doing.
From what I have read, both on the above pages, and elsewhere, there are very few definite ways of telling whether GM materials get in the finished products of GM foods, that Rats have suffered intestinal damage from eating GM Potatoes, though, admittedly, a diet of purely potatos would probably give me intestinal damage too.
In other words, I read all these stories, some of them I believe, some of them I don't, but I am not beyond 'all reasonable doubt' about GM Foods yet. We can't ignore the future, but we can't always go blindly stumbling into it either.
-
and the big thing with GM food is that every one is diferent, proveing one variety is dangurus or something has no effect on any other (unless there derived from or releted to the bad one). it's like saying all plants are bad becase poison ivy can give you a bad rash .
-
I once fell in a **** of poison ivy when I was like 7. Literally, a whole damn ****. Luckily, it was near the beach so I just went into the water to soothe the pain/itching.
Regarding GM foods, I am certainly not a fanatic or extremist when it comes to accepting them if they are indeed useful. I don't know enough to pass judgement (no one here does I expect), but it they are useful then sure - bring 'em on. However, I have a general opinion that when you try to mess with nature's doing, you only end up screwing yourself in the end. We are as of yet too stupid and technologically primitive to forsee all sideeffects of new technology. If you try to improve upon nature, generally you get al sorts of terrible and unpredictable sideffects. But if "they" managed to prove GM foods have more benefits than drawbacks, I'm for it.
However, food is left to rot all the time. Many, many farmers throw away food constantly, becuase it more profitable to do that than to ship it somewhere. And not just GM foods, this happens to all produce. Blaming this problem on the anti-GM crowd is absurd.
I vaguely remember India having some breakthroughs or some such in agriculture, I'll try to dig someone up.
edit: that says b.u.s.h. not f**k, obviously.
-
ok were talking about a specific incedent, there was food shiped to africa, and it was turned down. becase 'the anti-GM crowd' told them lies, and many people died horably becase of it.
talking about generalitys of agraculture is irrelevent becase, the food left to rot usualy isn't sent half way around the world with the intention of saveing lives only to be refused once there.
saying that were too stupid to do it sounds a lot like the "it's unnatural" argument used by the conservitive morons to put down a good idea that there ideology tells them is somehow wrong. think about what that would sound like if you replaced all occurances of the word 'nature' with the word 'God'
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Idiots. Now there are issues with GM crops that are legitimate, but 99% of the stuff that makes the news doesn't come close. Cross pollonating with other crops (of the same species) to produce strains with unknown and unpredictable traits, yes, that's a concern. Cross-pollonating with a weed so far genetically removed from any form of commercially exploitable crop in a way that even creates a viable offspring? Not so likely. PETA, the orgo food camp, all of them have their heads in the sensationalistic, not the realistic.
Exactly. :yes: There are some problems associated with GM foods that could cause possible problems. I'm not surprised. They are only a few years old while conventional farming is thousends of years of constant improvement. There are bound to be teething troubles whenever you try something like this. However running around like chicken little is not the way to solve the problems. What needs to be done is a sensible analysis of the potential problems and ways to solve them or limit their impact.
The anti-GM lobby aren't against GM because of the dangers. They are anti-GM because they're luddites. The problem isn't the safety of GM, the problem is that it is GM. These people have a fundemental objection to the idea of GM food and no amount of science will ever convince them because it's almost religious with them (in fact for many of them it is religious!).
Originally posted by Rictor
Regarding GM foods, I am certainly not a fanatic or extremist when it comes to accepting them if they are indeed useful. I don't know enough to pass judgement (no one here does I expect), but it they are useful then sure - bring 'em on. However, I have a general opinion that when you try to mess with nature's doing, you only end up screwing yourself in the end. We are as of yet too stupid and technologically primitive to forsee all sideeffects of new technology. If you try to improve upon nature, generally you get al sorts of terrible and unpredictable sideffects. But if "they" managed to prove GM foods have more benefits than drawbacks, I'm for it.
That's the other arguement I hate. The it's not natural arguement. Load of crap. If you want natural move out of the city, buy some land and hunt mammoths on it. The very act of living in the city is unnatural. Instead of hunting and living off the land we set aside part of the country to grow specially breed plant and animal species who we then kill to provide us with our food. All farming is unnatural. Plain and simple. The consequences of organic farming I mentioned above are futher proof of the fact that it's unnatural too.
So again what we need to do is to sit down and compare all the methods of farming against each other. What needs to be seen is how much damage they do to the enviroment compared to the amount of food they bring in. This whole unnatural arguement is just a smokescreen and a flawed one at that since organic farming does more damage to the enviroment than conventional farming does due to it's unnaturalness.
-
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/ryongchon-imagery.htm
-
Urine is natural... I don't see anybody here drinking it...
As a matter of fact, everything you do can be considered natural if you consider man to be part of nature. If not, everything you do is not natural, your very existance becomes unnatural. That's nature for you.
Now to get back to the topic... are there any "new news" in this case about the train explosion?