AnnA is a Fucking Stool-Pigeon

Lurch wrote:

It's not like these groups just blow shit up for no reason.

To many, it seems as if they do. I do not know that much about ALF/ELF, and as such, I do consider their actions arbitrary.

I would listen to their reasons, but again, I consider acts of violence to be inherently unreasonable.

Lurch wrote:

They put their plans in action, take responsibility for them, and tell people why they did it.

If they took responsibility for their actions, they would operate openly, and stand up visibly and say "I DID IT" instead of operating on the fringes, as they do. I would actually LOVE IT if the ALF/ELF just started being open about their ideas. It could generate a lot of good discussion. And good discussion is far more effective than a matc

Lurch wrote:

Of course it's not stopping anything,

Well....then why bother?

Lurch wrote:

...but it's showing there is resistance and hopefully opening up some people's eyes to the crimes that are being committed against the Earth.

Are you saying that two wrongs make a right?

And again, I do not understand why discussion and being a real, visible presence to inspire discussion is not what ALF/ELF does. They just burn stuff down.

Lurch wrote:

And to the person who asked, "What about the people that will lose their jobs?", I'm sorry, but to quote The Devil is Electric: calling it your job doesn't make it right.

What you may consider right, others do not. This is the source of all opposition. As such, I do not think that you, I, or a band can really have the ultimate authority to dictate what is right to do.

And every single man has the right to feed and shelter themselves and their family. When you take someone's work from them, you are taking their food and shelter away. You are taking their ability to care for themselves away. There is no justification for denying anyone that basic right.

lex wrote:

I agree, I plan to not have children. If I want a kid I will most likely adopt. But people are free to do what they want, I don't think restricting the number of kids you can have it a good idea. Do we really want to turn into China?

You are distracting me from my job!!

I don't think people should have certain freedoms.

We already do not have a great many freedoms, and generally everyone agrees to abide by these restrictions because they make sense. But still we insist that it is within anyone's right to have 10 kids if they so desire. Reproduction should be protected as a right, as it is the basic biological function of all life ever, anywhere......but not unlimited reproduction.

Im pretty sure Arollo has successfully shot down every argument, and thus, wins.

arollo wrote:

lex wrote:

I agree, I plan to not have children. If I want a kid I will most likely adopt. But people are free to do what they want, I don't think restricting the number of kids you can have it a good idea. Do we really want to turn into China?

You are distracting me from my job!!

I don't think people should have certain freedoms.

We already do not have a great many freedoms, and generally everyone agrees to abide by these restrictions because they make sense. But still we insist that it is within anyone's right to have 10 kids if they so desire. Reproduction should be protected as a right, as it is the basic biological function of all life ever, anywhere......but not unlimited reproduction.

Do you think certain foods should be banned because it's a risk to your health? This is way off topic but I'm just wondering.

arollo wrote:

lex wrote:

I agree, I plan to not have children. If I want a kid I will most likely adopt. But people are free to do what they want, I don't think restricting the number of kids you can have it a good idea. Do we really want to turn into China?

You are distracting me from my job!!

I don't think people should have certain freedoms.

We already do not have a great many freedoms, and generally everyone agrees to abide by these restrictions because they make sense. But still we insist that it is within anyone's right to have 10 kids if they so desire. Reproduction should be protected as a right, as it is the basic biological function of all life ever, anywhere......but not unlimited reproduction.

unlimited sex for everyone!

Suck_It_Trebek wrote:

Im pretty sure Arollo has successfully shot down every argument, and thus, wins.

No! There is no winning and losing. Please do not take anything I say as an assertion that I am right, or that I believe I am right. I want to work all the angles. This isn't personal, this isn't emotional, it's just some people talking about some stuff. COME ON! Let's bitch each other out.

I like arguing it's fun, I never really take anything personal. Until you start calling me mean names, then it gets ugly.

dandangoose wrote:

arollo wrote:

lex wrote:

I agree, I plan to not have children. If I want a kid I will most likely adopt. But people are free to do what they want, I don't think restricting the number of kids you can have it a good idea. Do we really want to turn into China?

You are distracting me from my job!!

I don't think people should have certain freedoms.

We already do not have a great many freedoms, and generally everyone agrees to abide by these restrictions because they make sense. But still we insist that it is within anyone's right to have 10 kids if they so desire. Reproduction should be protected as a right, as it is the basic biological function of all life ever, anywhere......but not unlimited reproduction.

unlimited sex for everyone!

HIPPIE!

i totally do not agree with you on the reproduction front. if i want to have 15 kids, then god damnit i'm going to have 15 kids (note: i don't actually want 15 kids, i think that's fucking ridiculous). kinda curious about your answer to lex's question, so...answer it, papa.

I had to do a 20 minute debate on whether trans fat should be banned or not. NYC has already banned it, I think it's ridiculous. People should be able to eat what they want, even if it kills them...it's their choice.

arollo wrote:

Suck_It_Trebek wrote:

Im pretty sure Arollo has successfully shot down every argument, and thus, wins.

No! There is no winning and losing. Please do not take anything I say as an assertion that I am right, or that I believe I am right. I want to work all the angles. This isn't personal, this isn't emotional, it's just some people talking about some stuff. COME ON! Let's bitch each other out.

Fine, fine, fine.

I guess I will just say that I agree with you.

lex wrote:

Do you think certain foods should be banned because it's a risk to your health? This is way off topic but I'm just wondering.

Good question. And my answer basically refutes everything I just said. Ha ha.

Going by what I just said, then yes, foods that are a risk to your health should be banned. And by "risk to your health", I mean honest to God "it's going to kill you if you eat it" stuff. Like fried twinkies. But generally, it seems like things which adversely affect one's health are simply things which are over consumed. Like chocolate. It's not going to kill you or hurt you to have a bit of it, but if you have a lot of it, you'll get a fat ass. So what is chocolate? Is it bad for you, or is it's overconsumption bad for you?

Like I said about having kids - reproduce. Further the species. But 19 kids is harmful. And doesn't having a lot of kids actually adversely affect your health? (Of course, I think I just read about how women who do not have kids have higher risks of certain cancers too, so.....no one wins...)

But all that was just me trying not to make myself look like an idiot.

Honest answer to your question:

No! Of course not! People should be responsible for their own actions, and if they willingly put their own health at risk, then they are at fault, and not anyone else. As such, why should everyone be denied an occasional vice because some treat ice cream like it was the most important meal of the day?

But then again, there's the rub.....my health does not affect you in any way. Does it?

Okay, I'm in Canada, and all discussions here end up at this: tax payer's money funds the system overall, and as such, each individual has some responsibility to his neighbours for not abusing their money. This is a good argument in the public health system. And a frustrating one, because it's also a good argument in favour of banning things which are bad......but I just like things that are bad. They taste so good. I exercise, though, so I won't be a drain. It's all good!

lex wrote:

I had to do a 20 minute debate on whether trans fat should be banned or not. NYC has already banned it, I think it's ridiculous. People should be able to eat what they want, even if it kills them...it's their choice.

exactly, and the same could be said about drugs. not that i want to be able to freely do coke, heroin, and pcp, but it's a personal choice, not a community choice. and for the record, i think the only reason pot is illegal is because it would kill the alcohol, cotton, and tobacco industry.

aestheticguitar wrote:

i totally do not agree with you on the reproduction front. if i want to have 15 kids, then god damnit i'm going to have 15 kids (note: i don't actually want 15 kids, i think that's fucking ridiculous). kinda curious about your answer to lex's question, so...answer it, papa.

Yeah, but by the same token having 15 kids will adversely affect you as well. I don't know how this could be a law, really, but personal choice and freedom does imply some element of self-preservation in one form or another. As it stands, many human beings are happy with choice, but lack the 'self-preservation' bit.

Though this can be solved by education.

So I say we embrace a libertarian model, but with very, very, very well funded education. Free for everyone. That's how you get utopia. Maybe.

aestheticguitar wrote:

lex wrote:

I had to do a 20 minute debate on whether trans fat should be banned or not. NYC has already banned it, I think it's ridiculous. People should be able to eat what they want, even if it kills them...it's their choice.

exactly, and the same could be said about drugs. not that i want to be able to freely do coke, heroin, and pcp, but it's a personal choice, not a community choice. and for the record, i think the only reason pot is illegal is because it would kill the alcohol, cotton, and tobacco industry.

Being overweight doesn't harm other people. I think being tweaked out on cocaine and deciding oh hey, I need to go drive down to the store does put other people in danger. I don't know how I stand on drugs, I need to think about it more.

arollo wrote:

lex wrote:

Do you think certain foods should be banned because it's a risk to your health? This is way off topic but I'm just wondering.

Good question. And my answer basically refutes everything I just said. Ha ha.

Going by what I just said, then yes, foods that are a risk to your health should be banned. And by "risk to your health", I mean honest to God "it's going to kill you if you eat it" stuff. Like fried twinkies. But generally, it seems like things which adversely affect one's health are simply things which are over consumed. Like chocolate. It's not going to kill you or hurt you to have a bit of it, but if you have a lot of it, you'll get a fat ass. So what is chocolate? Is it bad for you, or is it's overconsumption bad for you?

Like I said about having kids - reproduce. Further the species. But 19 kids is harmful. And doesn't having a lot of kids actually adversely affect your health? (Of course, I think I just read about how women who do not have kids have higher risks of certain cancers too, so.....no one wins...)

But all that was just me trying not to make myself look like an idiot.

Honest answer to your question:

No! Of course not! People should be responsible for their own actions, and if they willingly put their own health at risk, then they are at fault, and not anyone else. As such, why should everyone be denied an occasional vice because some treat ice cream like it was the most important meal of the day?

But then again, there's the rub.....my health does not affect you in any way. Does it?

Okay, I'm in Canada, and all discussions here end up at this: tax payer's money funds the system overall, and as such, each individual has some responsibility to his neighbours for not abusing their money. This is a good argument in the public health system. And a frustrating one, because it's also a good argument in favour of banning things which are bad......but I just like things that are bad. They taste so good. I exercise, though, so I won't be a drain. It's all good!

I think this would kill you just by looking at it. Krispy Kreme donut, with bacon, cheese, meat, God knows what else. It's called a Luther Burger and people actually eat it.

lex wrote:

aestheticguitar wrote:

lex wrote:

I had to do a 20 minute debate on whether trans fat should be banned or not. NYC has already banned it, I think it's ridiculous. People should be able to eat what they want, even if it kills them...it's their choice.

exactly, and the same could be said about drugs. not that i want to be able to freely do coke, heroin, and pcp, but it's a personal choice, not a community choice. and for the record, i think the only reason pot is illegal is because it would kill the alcohol, cotton, and tobacco industry.

Being overweight doesn't harm other people. I think being tweaked out on cocaine and deciding oh hey, I need to go drive down to the store does put other people in danger. I don't know how I stand on drugs, I need to think about it more.

yeah, sure, driving on coke is bad....but so is driving drunk, you don't see alcohol bans, do you?

aestheticguitar wrote:

lex wrote:

aestheticguitar wrote:

lex wrote:

I had to do a 20 minute debate on whether trans fat should be banned or not. NYC has already banned it, I think it's ridiculous. People should be able to eat what they want, even if it kills them...it's their choice.

exactly, and the same could be said about drugs. not that i want to be able to freely do coke, heroin, and pcp, but it's a personal choice, not a community choice. and for the record, i think the only reason pot is illegal is because it would kill the alcohol, cotton, and tobacco industry.

Being overweight doesn't harm other people. I think being tweaked out on cocaine and deciding oh hey, I need to go drive down to the store does put other people in danger. I don't know how I stand on drugs, I need to think about it more.

yeah, sure, driving on coke is bad....but so is driving drunk, you don't see alcohol bans, do you?

Been there, done that.

aestheticguitar wrote:

lex wrote:

I had to do a 20 minute debate on whether trans fat should be banned or not. NYC has already banned it, I think it's ridiculous. People should be able to eat what they want, even if it kills them...it's their choice.

exactly, and the same could be said about drugs. not that i want to be able to freely do coke, heroin, and pcp, but it's a personal choice, not a community choice. and for the record, i think the only reason pot is illegal is because it would kill the alcohol, cotton, and tobacco industry.

I really hope you werent implying that banning trans fat is equally as bad as banning heroin and cocaine.

Suck_It_Trebek wrote:

aestheticguitar wrote:

lex wrote:

I had to do a 20 minute debate on whether trans fat should be banned or not. NYC has already banned it, I think it's ridiculous. People should be able to eat what they want, even if it kills them...it's their choice.

exactly, and the same could be said about drugs. not that i want to be able to freely do coke, heroin, and pcp, but it's a personal choice, not a community choice. and for the record, i think the only reason pot is illegal is because it would kill the alcohol, cotton, and tobacco industry.

I really hope you werent implying that banning trans fat is equally as bad as banning heroin and cocaine.

no, of course not. heroin and coke are far worse for you. i'm just saying that they're as much choices as eating trans fat or a luther burger (WTF WHO WOULD EAT THAT)

Oh man where can I get me some Luther Burger?

Better question, where can I find a hamdog?

Honestly, I think if tobacco and alcohol are legal, as well as things like caffeine, then coke, pot, heroin, and all that should be legal as well.

Alcohol is safe because it is regulated so much by the government. Driving under the influence of it is a crime. And in most places, public intoxication is a crime as well.

So how does clean, safe weed or heroin or coke or LSD being done away from the public harmful?

But that's just me. I do not think that you can go half way on that kind of logic. Either something is or is not harmful. Or it is or is not worth making available. You can't have your cake and eat it, I suppose is the phrase (although I often have cake and eat it, I really do not understand that phrase.)

lex wrote:

I think this would kill you just by looking at it. Krispy Kreme donut, with bacon, cheese, meat, God knows what else. It's called a Luther Burger and people actually eat it.

My God. I thought that was made up for the Boondocks. That really exists? Even if I still ate meat, I don't think I could imagine that possibly tasting good.


/totally off-topic.

As for trans-fats--I don't think they should be banned, but I think that "0 grams of trans fat!" in big letters with "per serving" underneath it when the product has less than 1 gram of trans fat per serving ought to be stopped. That's just bullshit.

I'm sure if you head on down South you could find a bunch.