[eDebate] malgor is always hungry

Josh jbhdb8
Wed Apr 15 15:13:50 CDT 2009


Just double checking:

I can hold you to "cap bad" but if I raise any specific arguments that might
cause you to "read the post" or make reference to "literature" you might beg
off.

Oh, and no twitter...

Didnt you also mock me for taking up inbox space?  Just checking,

You are at least right about the Mavs,

Josh

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 4:06 PM, malcolm gordon <
malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  Josh-
>
>
>
> Yes, that was the point of my post. I thought I was pretty straightforward
> about that. I don?t do twitter it freaks me out.  Good summation-people
> starving, don?t ignore the poor, McDonald?s is wasteful, but you forgot
> one very important piece of advice.  Don?t worry this is not a rick roll.
> Actually I have said cap is bad a couple of times so that?s a ?meaningful
> argument you can tie me to.?
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMkC67sEEs8
>
>
>
>
>
> **this message was sent using my dingleberry**
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Josh [mailto:jbhdb8 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 15, 2009 2:34 PM
>
> *To:* malcolm gordon
> *Cc:* edebate at ndtceda.com
> *Subject:* Re: [eDebate] malgor is always hungry
>
>
>
> Malgor,
>
>
>
> You are a funny fella, no denying that....but it seems the POINT of your
> posts was, after three iterations, just to say "people are starving"
>
>
>
> Good work....you called me and DK out in a discussion about how industrial
> ag was better than alternatives to tell us people were starving......wow.
> Good work sir.  Thanks for the heads up.  I will be looking for more up to
> the minute news flashes from the bayou.
>
> Thank goodness you are around to save me from the boredom of being
> constantly wrong.....Man you are helpful to have around...Maybe if you just
> send me the Malgor "twitter feed" I won't be so empty and bored anymore :).
> I can't wait to do me some Malgor learnin (which seems to basically mean -
> avoid all debates - mock people who try to engage - for gods sakes dont make
> a meaninful argument you could be tied to).
>
>
>
> .....hmmmm....People are starving, I should consider the poor, don't assume
> everyone can afford McDonalds.....Did I miss anything soothsayer jim?
> Thanks :)
>
>
>
> Go Chefs,
>
>
>
> Josh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 3:24 PM, malcolm gordon <
> malgorthewarrior at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 whole.
>
>
>
> 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
> relevant.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Malgor
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> Malgor,
>
>
>
> 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:
>
>
>
> Non-sequiter
>
>
>
> ?  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
> win.....ick.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Josh
>
>
>
>
>
> malgor
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090415/cfe32e2e/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list