[eDebate] malgor is always hungry

malcolm gordon malgorthewarrior
Wed Apr 15 14:24:04 CDT 2009

Oh Josh
You are a silly rabbit!  I'm not quite as bored as you, therefore don't have
enough time to have a long response.  Fortunately for both of us there isn't
much to respond to.  Nothing in my post indicted industrial agriculture as a
You are quite desperate for an industrial ag good/bad debate.  I'm not
really interested in talking with you about this.  I was merely pointing out
that in a world of industrial ag and capitalism things are mighty jacked.  I
do agree that distribution of resources is the biggest problem when dealing
with hunger/poverty, hence my central point in both short posts being that
people are starving/dying/being peed on/arrested/tortured/murdered despite
the fact that we produce enough (as you are so anxious to repeat over and
over and over) via advanced ag to make sure no one dies from lack of food.  
Also, I wasn't making solvency arguments, or disadvantages, or counterplans.
I'm not debating you. I literally posted some facts about how many people
are starving, and asserted that the status quo was inadequate.  Let it go,
man. We know I would win anyway.  
So I didn't really read your whole post because I assume it's just a bunch
of reasons you hate hippies and love industrial farming.  Again, not
Someday, when we are both feeling super dorky, we can have a huge throwdown
on edebate about something like prolif, or ag, or cap, and fill up
everyone's inbox etc. It won't be hard since you seem to pick the losing
side on every issue. 
Good day sir
PS- I won't make any Mavericks jokes here.  The playoffs start Sunday so
their 4 postseason games should give us all plenty of material.

From: Josh [mailto:jbhdb8 at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:50 PM
To: malcolm gordon
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: Re: [eDebate] malgor is always hungry
Again, your problem is that these "arguments" are not comparative.  And none
of them respond to my multiple specific pre-empts to your arguments (there
was a list a-f as I remember).
You say:
I disagree that indigenous people can't use their own cultural techniques to
feed themselves.  In fact, it's one of the dumbest things I've heard in a
while (granted you haven't been posting as much lately OH SNAP).  
I say:
Indigenous people, where self-sufficient, should continue to be so....Most
places where the world is hungry indigenous methods are failing for a
multitude of reasons (changing weather patterns, increased populations, less
indiginous area, changing needs).  I actually said the opposite in a sense
(that where self-sufficient they should be left alone).  
You say:
But I think you were saying that indigenous techniques alone couldn't feed
everyone in the world to a level you feel is adequate. This may be true.  Of
course, in a world of capitalist markets and industrial ag (which has
definitely been very good for both our bellies, being portly fellows) we
have a few things:
*  Every year 15 million children die of hunger
I say:
The answer is not less agriculture.  There is enough food presently to feed
every one of those people.  In addition, but for externalities like
governmental system, lack of investment in agriculture by central
governments, weather, and lack of a meaningful world emergency grain system
and prevention of speculative attacks there would be little to no hunger in
the world.  Good luck proving that in the absence of industrial agriculture
these people would be saved.  Organic agriculture is MUCH more land
intensive and produces much less yield.  In fact, for most of the world,
organic agriculture is something ONLY the rich can afford.
You say:
*  For the price of one missile, a school full of hungry children could eat
lunch every day for 5 years
I say:
*  Throughout the 1990's more than 100 million children will die from
illness and starvation. Those 100 million deaths could be prevented for the
price of ten Stealth bombers, or what the world spends on its military in
two days!
See above
*  The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is
well-fed, one-third is under-fed one-third is starving- Since you've entered
this site at least 200 people have died of starvation. Over 4 million will
die this year.
See above
You say:
I will say it's obvious you are frustrated with Ks.  You especially seemed
offended by the audacity of people to think that maybe the world we've
created is somewhat destructive.
I say:
No, misreading at best, I am frustrated with hippies thinking but for
industrial agriculture people would pass the organic peace pipe and everyone
would magically have food in bellies......I spent the entire year
researching global food and its just factually incorrect.  Does that mean we
should depict people as helpless in the face of famine - no...Does that mean
we should assume all people are hungry that arent capitalist - no....Does
that mean there are no problems in the present system - hell no....But your
argument is a solvency argument not a disadvantage and your alternative has
less than Zero chance of solving.....However, in many rounds the neg would
You say:
 Just remember it's easy to think that you have all the solutions when you
are always less than 5 miles from the nearest McDonald's.  At the end of the
night, when an underpaid employee (likely a young woman or minority) lugs 10
bags of trash out to the dumpster (cause it's more economical to throw
something away than give it away) behind the McDonald's..how many people
could that feed?
I say:
Actually this argument proves my point more than yours...its a question of
better safety nets, less waste, and better distribution.  There are real and
meaningful proposals for just this since oil spiked two years ago (please
read IFPRI's Virtual reserve proposals for instance). However, there would
be less food available in the world you propose for MORE people......You are
making solvency arguments not disadvantages.
I hate when it comes to this...But I was relatively poor for a good deal of
my life...I have seen a good deal of hunger...I totally understand I am
privledged but that is ONLY a warrant for supporting the system that has the
best chance of ending malnutrition and hunger....That system sure as hell
isnt hippy organics or becoming pre-capitalist through wizardy and magic.

eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090415/e363a79b/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list