?

Log in

LiveJournal for Puppet Master.

View:User Info.
View:Friends.
View:Calendar.
View:Memories.
You're looking at the latest 20 entries. Missed some entries? Then simply jump back 20 entries.

Friday, April 18th, 2008

Posted by:brainvsmind.
Time:6:41 pm.
 HELLOOO
Comments: Read 1 orAdd Your Own.

Monday, December 30th, 2002

Subject:Capitalism vs. Bloody Pinkos
Posted by:calamarimonster.
Time:8:54 pm.
Sean, if you don't post soon, I'll have to declare Marc the winner.
Comments: Read 1 orAdd Your Own.

Tuesday, December 24th, 2002

Posted by:calamarimonster.
Time:9:13 am.
I need someone to challenge me on a moral issue, I'll take whatever.

I've got a battle to get ready for, I need practice.
Comments: Read 8 orAdd Your Own.

Thursday, December 19th, 2002

Subject:Socialism
Posted by:theadvocate.
Time:8:23 pm.
I will be arguing the side of Socialism, more specifically Socialist Anarcho-Syndicalism.

Socialism

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. (1)

[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. (2)


Anarcho-Syndicalism

'Anarcho-Syndicalism is sometimes held to be a particular theory as to how an Anarchist society should be organised, that is, through unions or syndicates. Some regard it as a faction counterpoised to other forms of Anarchism, or even as a political ideology completely separate from Anarchism. In my view these are all mistakes. Rather, Anarcho-Syndicalism can be defined as "the strategy of advancing the Anarchist project through building a leaderless mass movement of wage-workers using direct action to take control of the workplace away from the bosses." This definition may be a little rough, but the important part I want to stress is that it is a "strategy for advancing the Anarchist project".'(3)

Hence, Anarcho-Syndicalism means the creating of small communities or syndicates which would be directly controlled by the workers.



As opposed to Capitalism

Capitalism, more specifically laissez-fairecapitalist theory is most often attributed to Adam Smith who, in 1776 published his Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. In this book, Smith developed the idea of "the invisible hand," as he called it, whereby " the private interests and passions of men" are led in the direction "which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society." This idea is explained nicely here:

Adam Smith's laws of the market are basically simple. They tell us that the outcome of a certain kind of behavior in a certain social framework will bring about perfectly definite and foreseeable results. Specifically they show us how the drive of individual self- interest in an environment of similarly motivated individuals will result in competition; and they further demonstrate how competition will result in the provision of those goods that society wants, in the quantities that society desires, and at the prices society is prepared to pay.

But self- interest is only half the picture. It drives men to action. Something else must prevent the pushing of profit hungry individuals from holding society up to exorbitant ransom. This regulator is competition, the conflict of the self- interested actors on the marketplace. A man who permits his self- interest to run away with him will find that competitors have slipped in to take his trade away. Thus the selfish motives of men are transmuted by interaction to yield the most unexpected of results: social harmony.
(4)

How does Socialism respond to this theory? The Socialist position is that any Capitalist economy will naturally revert towards an anti-proletariat(worker) system. In an effort to maximize profits, the bourgeois (owners, ruling class) would do such things as decrease wages and prevent worker's unions. The result of this would be, for all intents and purposes, wage-slavery. If a worker or a group of workers went on strike, the company would immediately fire those workers and hire new workers. The only way a company could do this is if there is a sufficient group of unemployed workers and craftsmen to hire if the current employees tried to organise and a considerable monopoly over a given market, and it would be entirely possible for companies to crush competition without government intervention. To usurp this, the workers would have to have direct control of government and companies. The government would have to be made to enforce laws against companies monopolizing the market. And thus, complete economic freedom would result in wage-slavery, high rate of unemployment and complete dominance of the rich classes over the working class.

There will be no voting on this. This, and Sean's first post will be outlining our beliefs. Your turn, Sean.


(1)Source: The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright � 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
(2)Source: Encyclopedia Britannica.
(3)Excerpt from "What is Anarchism?
What is Anarcho-Syndicalism?" by Jeremy Dixon.
(4)Excerpt from Robert L. Heilbroner's "The Worldly Philosophers".
Comments: Read 2 orAdd Your Own.

Subject:Myself vs. Sean, Socialism vs. Capitalism.
Posted by:theadvocate.
Time:6:01 am.
Beating a dead horse. Sean and I will debate the merits, flaws, feasibility and effects of Socialism and Capitalism. I will represent Socialism, Sean will represent Capitalism.

The Rules:
1. No personal attacks of any kind.
2. Opponent must be willing to clarify or explain any points previously made.
3. The sources of any quotes or figures must be listed in a bibliography at the end of each post.

The judges, if they are willing, will be Andrew and Lindsay. This should be interesting.

I will make the first post in the next 24 hours.
Comments: Read 15 orAdd Your Own.

Tuesday, June 11th, 2002

Subject:Challenge
Posted by:calamarimonster.
Time:9:30 pm.
Argue with me, please.

Chose your topic.
Comments: Read 14 orAdd Your Own.

Tuesday, April 30th, 2002

Posted by:calamarimonster.
Time:8:36 pm.
Come and get me.
Comments: Read 1 orAdd Your Own.

Thursday, January 10th, 2002

Posted by:godcalledinsick.
Time:11:16 pm.
Mood: curious.
Which sex do you think has it easier in our culture? Have you ever wished you were of the opposite sex?

I don't really want to start a debate about this, but I know one will happen. I just wanna hear what your opinions are.
(There is no right answer, but everyone [even Steve!] can have an opinion about it!)
Comments: Read 5 orAdd Your Own.

Saturday, November 10th, 2001

Subject:Debate for Daina
Posted by:cureforyourpain.
Time:5:37 pm.
Daina this is a challenge to you. Since you're so anti-capitalism I've opted to go for a debate between you and a partner vs. Andrew Speirs and myself. Both of us are pro-capitalism or a mixed-economey you may call it and you are very clearly anti-that. Provide a better solution to capitalism; AKA Anarchy, socialism, communism etc. and try to defend that side.

This is your main point, now try to fight for it bitch. Pick your own partner and to show how generous I am you get the first post.
Comments: Read 7 orAdd Your Own.

Saturday, October 20th, 2001

Subject:Restarting of the Debate Corner.
Posted by:cureforyourpain.
Time:6:54 pm.
Mood: bored.
Open Debate, post all of your thoughts in the comments section.

Left-Wing politics or Right-Wing politics?
Comments: Add Your Own.

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2001

Subject:Casting my vote.
Posted by:cureforyourpain.
Time:11:15 pm.
Well here we go I'm casting my debate_corner vote. I know it's supposed to be 3 of us all at the same time, but neither of the other judges are on.

I vote Lindsay.

Andrew you did not present facts or base any of your arguments in a debate fashion. Nothing you said or did was really fact-based and the whole argument was basically"you're evil".

Lindsay on the other hand took it seriously and actually tried to present facts and run this as a real debate.
Comments: Add Your Own.

Subject:Mmmm, Beefy.
Posted by:calamarimonster.
Time:5:49 pm.
Mood: bored.
Well, I'd take a look at my magazine, Beef Today. Got it off of People for Eating Tasty Animals, or PETA.

I could put my points down and attack yours, but I'd like to sum it all up with one point, on account of I'm bored.

This is my final point:

Jerky.

Ta.
Comments: Add Your Own.

Posted by:godcalledinsick.
Time:4:46 pm.
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
�Albert Einstein

Uh oh! Andrew...I have more back up for my numbers! This one you might like a little more. Ever heard of PETA? People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Their web site is www.meatstinks.com

I have in my hand right now a copy of the free magazine that they are willing to send you, (courtesy of Loyal!). Some facts directly out of there....

- Vegetarianism is an automatic cholesterol-cutter. Dietary cholesterol, which causes heart disease, is found only in animal products.

- An American male meat-eater has a 50% chance of dying of a heart attack, compared to virtually no chance for a pure vegetarian.

- The incidence of high blood pressure is generally greater among meat-eaters than among vegetarians, and cancers of the breast, colon and prostate are more common among people on a high-meant, high-fat, low-fiber diet.

- Mean, dairy products, and eggs are completely devoid of fiber and complex carbohydrates, the nutrients that we're supposed to be consuming more of, and are laden with saturated fat and cholesterol, which make us fat and lethargic in the short term and lead to clogged arteries and heart attacks in the long run.

- The average vegetarian lives six years longer than the average meat-eater.

- Most Americans get at least twice as much protein as they need. Too much protein, especially animal protein, can cause people to excrete calcium through their urine and increase their risk of osteoporosis. Too much protein can also strain the kidneys, leading to kidney disease. All grains, legumes, vegetables, nuts and seeds provide all the essential amino acids.

- No species naturally drinks milk beyond infancy, and no species would naturally drink the milk of a different species. Cows milk is designed for baby cows, who have four stomachs, double their weight in 47 days, and weigh 800 pounds within a year.


After the health section in this magazine, there is a couple pages on animal treatment, including some true stories about treatment of animals that has actually been witnessed by PETA members. I've been told by the judges not to go into detail about this topic anymore so I will just post these numbers. Once again these are right out of this magazine.

"Every year in the United States, more than 9 billion animals are killed for food; millions more die of stress, suffocation, injuries, or disease on the food industry. In his or her lifetime, the average American meat-eater is responsible for the abuse and deaths of some 2,400 animals, including approximately 2.287 chickens, 92 turkeys, 31 pigs, and 12 steers and calves."


How does eating meat harm the planet?

Land
Eighty-seven percent of all agricultural land in the US is used to raise animals for food; that 45 percent of the total land mass in the US.

Water
More than half the water consumed in the US if used for animals being raised for food. A totally vegetarian diet requires about 300 gallons of water a day, whereas a meat-eating diet requires about 4,500 gallons a day.

Pollution
Raising animals for food causes more water pollution in the US than any other industry because animals raised for food produce 130 time the excrement of the entire human population.

Energy
More than one-third of all raw materials and fossil fuels used in the US are used to raise animals for food. To produce a single hamburger patty takes enough fossil fuel to drive a small car 20 miles.

Deforestation
More than 260 million acres of US forest have been cleared to grow crops to feed animals raised for meat. Tropical rain forests are also being destroyed to create grazing land for cattle.

Resources
Animals raised for food are fed more than 80 percent of the corn grown in the US and more than 95 percent of the oats. The worlds cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people. That's more than all the worlds population.



Don't kids need milk to be healthy?

Humans are the only creatures that drink milk from the mother of another species. It's as unnatural for a child to drink the milk of a cow as it is for a dog to drink the milk of a giraffe! Human children have no nutritional requirements for cow's milk and grow up healthy and strong without it. Cows milk (and the products made from it) is laced with foreign, frequently allergy-inciting, bovine protein and often contains hydrocarbon pesticides and other chemical contaminants, as well as health-endangering saturated fat. Clinical experience suggests that cows milk is linked to numerous common health problems (runny noses, allergies, ear infections, recurrent bronchitis, asthma, etc.) that often keep people returning to their doctors' offices, instead of to their jobs or classrooms.
--Michael Klaper, M.D., nutritional expert


Andrews turn! Last one remember....make it good!
Comments: Read 4 orAdd Your Own.

Subject:debate? hah, you kid me mr.speirs don't you?
Posted by:mr_criticism.
Time:4:32 pm.
a debate, now this would be a waste of time. i know the whole reason for such a test, it's really quite obvious. another move to find out who we are, good try. you should've left it a little less obvious and maybe not mentioned how hard you were trying to find out who we are. give it some time, and maybe we'll reveal who we truly are.
Comments: Read 1 orAdd Your Own.

Sunday, September 30th, 2001

Subject:1 post left for each party
Posted by:cureforyourpain.
Time:11:36 am.
I'm giving each party of Andrew and Lindsay 1 last post on their debate then the decision will be made as to who won.
Comments: Read 7 orAdd Your Own.

Thursday, September 27th, 2001

Subject:1 on 1 debate corner.
Posted by:cureforyourpain.
Time:5:05 pm.
Well here I want Seth vs. Aaron. The topic is the issue they've been debating everywhere else, so I see no need for me to mention anything about it.

Post your posts in the comments boys, and I'll give it a week for a winner to be named. At the end me and 4 judges of my choosing will pick the winner.

That's all for now! tata!

Comment away!
Comments: Read 1 orAdd Your Own.

Tuesday, September 25th, 2001

Posted by:calamarimonster.
Time:11:17 pm.


Horray, I finally got some proof of your numbers!!
Am I bothered by the fact that this proof is on some random persons website, who may say that elvis is alive, and expect me to believe that to??

Nah.

"If everyone in the world became a vegetarian there would be no world hunger. We could use the grain that's fed to animals to feed hungry people."

Right, and what would we feed the animals then? Would we allow them to starve, which would make no sense, or allow them to live.

You see Lindsay, this is what's called a population boom and crash. If we stop eating Animals, there will be more animals, and they will eat the grain, and we will eat the grain, and sooner or later there will be no grain, and just a bunch of hungry people and fattened animals.
Square 1.

"We could use the land that is currently used for cattle to grow veggies and fruit or even to put shopping malls on if thats what people decide."

Yay, let's get rid of land and put buildings on it, horray for progress and over crowding!!

Tuna Info.

Knock yourself out.

And if you can't find my point on your own, I'll just put this down and point it out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat has many essential amino acids and proteins that you'd have to come up with many combinations of plants to match.
1 steak would take a lot of beans to beat. Therefore, it's more economical and convenient to eat meat.
Sure, meat is more expensive, but it's quality, not quantity. Just toss some random numbers about, let's say it's 8 bucks for a pound of steak. Now, the plants seem a lot less, running around 4 or 5 a pound, but when you add it all together, and realize you'll need more than pound for pound, the price rises considerably.
It is cheaper to vary your diet omnivoursly rather than go straight vegitarian.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
That was my point. That one right there, above me, in the dotted line area.

You dig?
Comments: Read 6 orAdd Your Own.

Sunday, September 23rd, 2001

Posted by:godcalledinsick.
Time:1:44 pm.
How much grain do you think it takes to produce one pound of meat. Some more numbers here...about 3 pounds for one pound of chicken. About 5 pounds for 1 pound of beef and about 7 pounds for 1 pound of pork. You want more proof of my numbers?
http://www.tiedyes.com/patty/10reasonstobeveggie.html
Research it further if you'd like.
If everyone in the world became a vegetarian there would be no world hunger. We could use the grain that's fed to animals to feed hungry people. We could use the land that is currently used for cattle to grow veggies and fruit or even to put shopping malls on if thats what people decide.
Also, I took your challenge about the numbers, you take mine about the "dolphin free" tuna.
One more thing, I still didn't see any new points raised. The "new point" you decided to throw in was basically what you have been repeating this entire debate. C'mon! Give me something that is challenging to prove wrong. Something that is not only opinion.
Comments: Read 7 orAdd Your Own.

Thursday, September 20th, 2001

Subject:*Insert Meat Reference Here*
Posted by:calamarimonster.
Time:4:50 pm.
1)Well that's peachy. I don't care.

2)I'll take your challenge when you start taking mine

3)Of course we're smarter than monkeys. Apes are higher on the evolutionary scale. And I really don't think much of the human race. The similarities between us and lower primates is startling.

4)Maybe not, but you brought up the point of nessascity, and it was my job to show how little that matters to us.

5)Jerky.

6)Yes. Yes Lindsay, because it's "just a fish", that makes it pain less important. If I tied a human to a chair and a fish to another chair, and started cutting them slowly, you'd let the human go first. That's common sense.

7)I don't know. Never said I did, just said I assumed there were some.

8)So we're agreed then, splendid.

9)I'm no expert, but I know a bit more than the laymen. And this is me we're referring to, you know it takes a lot more than scare tactics to sway me.

10)Irrelivant. A lot of things cause Cancer, and hey, something's got to kill you, may as well be something you enjoy. And no, that's not to say I'd enjoy cancer, just I'd prefer meat kills me, as opposed to a mack truck.

11)Yeah, and the rich eat well. And as for the numbers, well that's why they're random silly.

12)It would. Now if only those regulations affected me I'd hop on the bandwagon.

14)I rasied several. Most of them were smaller, placed in the attacks on your points, but there were several there, take your pick

Yes, but it's not happening to people. And so what if we play God? We're both atheists here so that term means almost nothing, and if we don't believe in God, then there is absolutely no reason not to play it, if it's for the betterment of Glorified Apekind.

And also, I asked you for proof in about three different spots, and you didn't even mention that to tell me that you wouldn't. Either admit you're making things up, or give me my evidence.

And I may as well throw in a new point, what the hell.
These creatures are grown for the strict purpose of feeding us. They don't think, they react by instinct.
They don't have emotion, that too is a type of instinct in them.
They are mindless pieces of meat.
A society without art is not an intelligent society.
Therefore the cow civilization is, believe it or not, below us.
Comments: Read 9 orAdd Your Own.

Wednesday, September 19th, 2001

Posted by:godcalledinsick.
Time:9:34 pm.
1) I never said fish, crabs, lobsters, etc. were as intelligent as humans. They aren't. All I'm saying is they are more intelligent then you give them credit for.

2) Dolphin free tuna isn't really dolphin free. I challenge you to research this throughly and let me know what you find.

3) "Us glorified apes"? If that is all you see us as then what gives us the right to decide when other animals live or die? Does this mean we are no smarter than monkeys?

4) Does school, cars, drinking and drugs, internet, etc. kill millions of innocent animals every year? NO! We are not debating human life, we're debating animal life. We are also not debating whether all the toys humans have created are necessary.

5) What would those "healthy alternatives to veggies that are bad for you" be?

6) "Yes pain is pain, but it's a fricking fish no matter how you look at it." Because it's ~just~ a fish makes it's pain less important? hmmm....

7) Which animals (other than humans) eat meat purely for taste?

8) I bet other animals would "grow" animals to slaughter them too. But they can't and don't.

9) You say that the reasons TO eat meat interest you far more, but do you even know all the reasons NOT to? Have you researched this topic before now?

10) Too much protein has been linked to some kinds of cancer. Because we have many different ways of importing vegetables and fruits that we could not normally grow here, it is actually quite easy to make combinations that are more healthy than many meat dishes.

11) A pound is a pound whether it's a pound of feathers or bricks. Many people when they don't have much money begin to eat mostly vegetarian meals because it is much cheaper. Good meat is very expensive. I also believe your random numbers were way off.

12) I realize there is no large panic for water, but there has been restrictions put in place in many areas to control how much is used. Wouldn't it be nice to have just that little bit extra to get rid of those regulations?

13) I didn't really see any new points raised.



Cows are given growth hormones for three reasons. #1: To produce leaner, cheaper meat. #2: To produce more meat. #3: To make the cows produce more milk. Two out of every three beef cattle are implanted with growth hormones. It is rare but it happens, that new hormones be put into the cows food supply even before it is yet known whether or not it is safe for human consumption! Many cows are also fed whatever cheap protein rich thing that can be found. Sawdust, newspaper, meat from other cows...we are taking cows and changing them from herbivores to omnivores. We're "playing God." We have taken an existing species and changed it to suit our needs that are based solely on cost. If that was happening to humans people would be completely outraged!
Comments: Add Your Own.

LiveJournal for Puppet Master.

View:User Info.
View:Friends.
View:Calendar.
View:Memories.
You're looking at the latest 20 entries. Missed some entries? Then simply jump back 20 entries.