Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I can't believe you're suggesting that a prosperous Gaza does absolutely nothing for Hamas. As though the people won't infer that a government takeover by a terrorist organization is a good thing and worthy of support. If Hamas wants any sort of popular support, it has to keep the people happy.

The fact that you can't provide any evidence to the contrary I think resolves this matter. As I've said before, there are far more established means by which Hamas can attain their supplies, and it makes no sense for them to use official UN channels for bombs and other weaponry. As for Hamas' popular image in Gaza: I don't really care. That's something that the Palestinians will decide. Hamas is an extremely popular political organization inside of Gaza, and it has endorsed the democratic process. If Israel is really so concerned about the Palestinians (lol), they can include demands for free internationally observed elections upon their withdrawal from the territories.

You want to get technical about it? Fine: Again, a blockade is not an attack

Actually I'm drawing from article 2 of the UN charter:

All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

The keyword is force, not attack, and there's no qualification for the use of violence.

Uhh, no, the blockade started after Hamas violently usurped Fatah from Gaza in 2007. The elections were in 2006.

Allow me to ammend my statements. The sanctions, which including the blocking of essential aid into Gaza began in 2006 as a direct result of the palestinians voting the wrong way in a free election. The formal "blockade" began in 2007 after a failed US-Israel coop against Hamas backfired and resulted in Hamas taking control of the Gaza strip.

San remo manual on conflict at sea:

Why are you quoting the San remo manual? If you read my post you should know the document that I cited: the Fourth Geneva Convention. Look, the world is a complicated place, just because Israel isn't violating one international law doesn't mean they aren't violating a whole slew of others. Furthermore the San Remo manual does not encompass all law relevant to this conflict, and is a non-binding document, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I also note your complete failure to negate the argument of collective punishment. Which is wholly illegal. And Israel's actions have been verified as illegal by multiple independant bodies, including human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Thanks for the definition, though the blockade is not a criminal act.

Sorry, a vast international consensus disagrees with you. And since you're not a expert on international law (or apparently even very familiar with it), I'll take their opinion over yours.

Except for the enormous propaganda victory it would afford them as well as the ability to build fortifications.

Who cares? Nobody except you. If Hamas wins a propaganda victory then good for them, but I don't see how this affects the Israel. In fact, it doesn't affect them at all, so this argument is transparent apologism for the wholesale slaughter of the Palestinians. Not that it's surprising given your background. As for the bunkers: it's unlikely, given UN aid is monitored and never handed over to the government as it would be in other countries. Even if it does happen, the benefits of rebuilding Palestinian homes and infrastructure far outweigh any 'security' benefits Israel gains. Again, as long as the cease fire is offered, they have no excuse.

Assuming you mean "Palestinian" people, there, in which case you should ask Hamas, "Why is holding Shalit hostage and refusing to renounce aggressive violence taking precedence over the safety of your Palestinian brethern?"

This is just more hypocrisy. Israel can't denounce Hamas for holding Shalit when they're holding several thousand palestinians in their prisons. Around 300 of which are Children. Many (including the children) of which are tortured (another violation of international law), intimidated, deprived of adequate medical care, etc. If Israel wanted Shalit back they would negotiate with Hamas, which they have refused to do.

It's worth noting by the way that Shalit wasn't kidnapped, he was taken prisoner. He's a soldier, a combatant, in uniform. He's entitled to humane treatment, but it's not a violation to capture and hold him. Capturing children and torturing them is however a gross violation of international law under multiple treatys, and is a despisable and loathsome act reserved only for the most dedicated opponents of humanity.

As for 'renouncing violence', it's irrelevant. First of all, Israel doesn't renounce violence, so why should Hamas? Furthermore, if Hamas has offered a cease-fire it doesn't matter if it renounces violence? All Israel needs to be concerned with is if Hamas will aggression to a cease fire along internationally recognized borders, which they have.

Yes, because it assumes there's an armed group of internationally contributed forces ready to enforce Security Council decisions, though this group has never existed.

No it doesn't. States ratify international treaties in their respective legislative bodies. Most modern states have a seperation of powers, so the assumption is that states will be self regulating. There are some problems with this assumption, but it's largely sound. In many cases where international law is breached, political and economic sanctions can be placed against the offender, which often is successful. The only two exceptions to the wide consensus of international law are the US and Israel. Which is why most of the world views them as dangerous rogue states, that pose a tremendous threat to international peace.

Even if it was ineffective, it doesn't mean it's 'outdated' or wrong. It just means that the structure of international law has to change, not the principle.

It also assumes that ensuring global peace would outweigh any domestic interests of the SC nations, much less a rivalry between them.

Again, no it doesn't. It doesn't ignore the reality it just tries to control it's extremes. We come from a world of politics where wars were waged openly for land and resources, at mere whims. Where terrible weapons like mustard gas were commonplace. Are you asking us to return to that? The law of the fish, is barbaric and outdated. It's completely unnacceptable to slaughter innocent people in the name of acquiring control over more resources. Your doctrine amounts to might makes right.

I'm pretty sure that got tossed out after Cast Lead. The cease fire was unilateral on both sides afterwards.

Well you're wrong. It's not like Hamas is in constant contact with Israel, they loathe each other and won't talk directly. But Hamas has made public statements indicating it's willing to negotiate. History proves that they are capable of negotiating and holding to cease fire. Israel has rejected this though, on the basis of stupid and impulsive conditions like recognizing Israel's 'right to exist', which is of course completely irrelevant.

It isn't racist if it's true.

Yeah, except it's not true. Your statement "So they can't even control their own biological impulses yet they feel entitled to a Palestinian state", indicates some belief of national or genetic inferiority. As if white, christian people of european descent wouldn't do the exact same thing when placed in the same situation. No, your statement was blatantly racist, and everyone knows it. But it's not really surprising since you've said incredibly stupid things of a similar calibur in past discussions.

At 9/30/10 05:09 PM, adrshepard wrote: Israel is not an occupying power in any way.

You are free to call it whatever you want, but their violations (and failed obligations) are still the same. The Israeli's of course have no reason at all to continue the blockade, as it's simply a targeted attack on the people of Palestine, and not it's government. But even if the Egyptian tunnels and the cease fire offer didn't exist, Israel is obligated (as are all states), to act proportionally. Weighing military benefit against civilian loss. Two customary principles of the Law of Armed Conflict, distinction and proportion can be invoked here. The blockade is in violation of both. It targets civilians indiscriminately (while having little or no effect on Hamas), and is completely disproportional to the military benefit gained (which is nothing, considering the cease fire, and is worth very little otherwise due to tunnels under Egypt).

The blockade also constitutes collective punishment, which is a gross violation of international law under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Since the seige was raised as a direct result of the Palestinians voting the wrong way in a free election, the blockade can be seen as an attempt to either overthrow the Hamas government, or otherwise the use of force to change it's policies through collective punishment of the Palestinian population. This of course also constitutes terrorism, under the international definition, as a "Criminal act intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes".

Are you trying to say that ending the blockade wouldn't strengthen Hamas at all? Really?

Not in any significant manner. Lifting the siege will not allow Hamas the ability to buy weapons, it will however allow UN aid for rebuilding of homes, essential infrastructure, and the economy in general, which will greatly alleviate the Humanitarian crisis within Gaza, It actually makes no sense for Hamas to use the UN convoys to attain weapons like missiles, bombs, etc. Since it's much easier to ship exactly what you need through tunnels under Egypt then to try and craft one based on whats being provided by the UN.

But lets assume your right. And somehow Hamas becomes 'stronger' (something that's already happening under the blockade) because Israel decides to stop directly targeting civilians with their illegal seige. So what? Why does anyone care so long as there is peace? Why is absolutely crushing and destroying Hamas taking precedence over the safety of the Israeli people? You sound like a bloodthirsty idiot. These arguments are so paper thin they fall over to even minimal scrutiny.

Please, that provision is a joke that has been outdated since the Cold War. No country takes it seriously, since it is basically a pledge not to act in one's own interests. It is justiably ignored.

That's completely false. The UN charter was drafted at the beginning of the Cold War, by the way. So by you're logic it was outdated within the first years of it's existance? Just years after the US and it's allies had executed the Nazi's for these crimes, which they called lawless, and offenses against all humanity? Your knowledge of the history of international law is sorely lacking.

The concept of unilateral military action only in self defense, exists precisely because many feared that a new world superpower would do exactly what Germany had just done. Wage a war of aggression and conquest, attempting to annex and dominate the world, or a significant region of the world. Which would in turn cause massive death and suffering as the two previous world wars had.

It is sometimes defied by major powers, but that doesn't mean it's 'ignored'. The US has used the UN charter as legal argument against it's enemies often times. Including the incident with Kuwait being invaded by Iraq. So people do take it very seriously, if selectively, and it certainly not 'universally ignored'. On the contrary it's often invoked and widely upheld.

Whether you like it or not though, it's still international law, and the siege is unilateral and completely illegal. You can bitch and pout about how you don't like the law but it won't change this fundamental fact.

An agreement that said nothing about ending the blockade.

I'm talking about a cease fire that is still open now. And it has called for the end of the siege. As did the old one. I'm not sure where you get your facts, but they're wrong.

So they can't even control their own biological impulses yet they feel entitled to a Palestinian state?

Yes, we know you're a degenerate racist adrsheperd. You don't have to be so flagrant about it. If you want, you can go to Gaza since you think it's so great, and you can live in their shoes for a decade or so, and see how well you do in the same situation of food insecurity, polluted water, sickness, and constant violence and oppression from Israeli forces. When you get out, you can tell us all about the christ-like restraint you exercised in that situation. I'm sure it will be enlightening.

Maybe this is a bit lazy, posting quotes, but I think Eugene Debs had it right 90 years ago.

They would have you believe that the Socialist Party consists in the main of disloyalists and traitors. It is true in a sense not at all to their discredit. We frankly admit that we are disloyalists and traitors to the real traitors of this nation; to the gang that on the Pacific coast are trying to hang Tom Mooney and Warren Billings in spite of their well-known innocence and the protest of practically the whole civilized world.

Every solitary one of these aristocratic conspirators and would-be murderers claims to be an arch-patriot; every one of them insists that the war is being waged to make the world safe for democracy. What humbug! What rot! What false pretense! These autocrats, these tyrants, these red-handed robbers and murderers, the "patriots," while the men who have the courage to stand face to face with them, speak the truth, and fight for their exploited victims-they are the disloyalists and traitors. If this be true, I want to take my place side by side with the traitors in this fight.

At 9/29/10 11:47 PM, adrshepard wrote: Perhaps you could explain to everyone again how economic prosperity is an inalienable human right?

Economic prosperity is a misleading term. The Israeli's aren't preventing economic prosperity, they've basically pummeled the Gazan economy to the point where they don't even have one. They have no economy in the modern sense of the term. Most people live off of aid or sustenance fishing/farming. 40% of Gaza is unemployed, 61% of the Gaza strip is dependent on foreign aid, 70% live below the poverty line. There's also a severe shortage of electricity, which affects Gazan family's ability to make use of refrigerators and electronic water pumps. There's also a growing problem with water, since sewage has been leaking into the water supply, and many of the water filters have been destroyed by Israeli bombs, making most water undrinkable.

Israel as an occupying power holds an obligation under the Geneva conventions to look after the welfare of the citizens of Gaza, and to avoid civilian death where possible. It has undeniably failed in this task, making Israel ipso facto in violation of international law.

Furthermore the siege doesn't really hurt Hamas, who receives their funding, food, and weapons through underground tunnels to Egypt, with funding from Iran. It doesn't make the Gazan people resent them either, rather it his strengthened their grip on the strip, as they have become the sole provider of rare items like meat, fresh vegetables, and medical equipment. The only people it affects are the Gazan people. Particularly the elderly, the very young, and the sick. And this is a fact that is known to the Israeli government and ignored, because their target is in fact the people of Gaza (including the sick, elderly, and very young), and not Hamas. So Israel isn't just neglecting the Palestinians, they're targeting them directly.

Or why Israel should allow an openly hostile government to fill its coffers through trade?

Israel simply has no legal right to unilateral military action (including the blockade) unless in self defense, or under the consent of the Security Council (this is under the UN charter, of which Israel is a signatory). The Security Council has condemned it, and Israel has no legitimate claim to self defense because there is a cease fire agreement on the table.

And besides, like I said. Hamas is funded by Iran, and receives shipments through Egypt. Anything they need to be violent, they'll get through those channels.

And the kicker, and this is directed to everyone, if life under Israeli rule is so hopeless and oppressive, why do the Palestinians have such explosive population growth rates?

Because that's exactly what happens in areas of high food instability and economic insecurity. Population growth is a direct result of insecurity. It's a preservation mechanism programmed into human behavior, meant to insure the survival of the species. The exact same thing happens in Africa, and Indo-China.

Back on topic. Check this out.

Last week, a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled that liability under the Alien Torts Claims Act does not apply to corporations.

should the case...be upheld by the US Supreme Court, it will be impossible for plaintiffs to file lawsuits in the US against corporations that have violated international human rights laws overseas

"The principle of individual liability for violations of international law has been limited to natural persons - not 'juridical' persons such as corporations - because the moral responsibility for a crime so heinous and unbounded as to rise to the level of an 'international crime' has rested solely with the individual men and women who have perpetrated it," the majority opinion states.

So basically, corporations have the green light to attack anti-corporate activists; brutalize, murder, and torture them; and the victims will have no legal recourse in the United States. So corporations have all the benefits of being a person, and none of the liabilities? Interesting.

At 9/27/10 12:26 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Oh I'm sorry I didn't realise words had objective meaning. Inter-subjective consensus be damned!

There is an inter-subjective consensus. It's called scholarly consensus, and it's codified in something called a dictionary. Now if you're willing to get over yourself for a second you might pick up said dictionary and read the generally recognized definition of the word 'freedom'. Then look up the words 'right' (as in relations to political structures) and 'privilege'. Then, notice the stark contrast between a freedom, and a right or privilege.

Rights and privileges are granted through restrictions of freedom. You have the privilege of not being killed, because you sacrifice the freedom to kill someone. You have the right to free speech, because you sacrifice the freedom to impede on another's free speech. You have the right to democracy, because you sacrifice the freedom to impose tyranny on others.

This is basic Hobbes. If these concepts are shocking to you, you might want to consider taking a course in basic philosophy.

Sorry, whoever said anything about no laws? I have never ever heard of any libertarian advocate no laws.

Right. They abuse the word 'freedom', and obviously don't understand it's true meaning. Their language actually advocates primitivism, when in reality they advocate something completely different.

Actually, I suspect they use words like 'freedom' and 'liberty' simply because they have such positive connotations (though as displayed in this thread, freedom isn't always such a positive thing). They may or may not be aware aware that they're abusing them.

At 9/26/10 09:16 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Except for the fact that 99.9% of all humans consider "not being murdered" a more important "freedom" than "being able to murder people".

"Not being murdered" isn't a freedom. You need to look up the definition of that word. "Not being murdered" is a privilege that's bestowed on you by the restrictions on behavior that are present in any civil society.

Sorry, have you met ANYONE who promotes freedom who wants murder to be legal? Most libertarians consider murder the absolute opposite of freedom.

That's because freedom is an abused term, and most libertarians (including yourself) don't understand the very real implications of 'perfect freedom'. There will always need to be agreed upon laws that govern society, and there will always need to be some form of enforcement for those laws.

Freedom is the most overused, abused term in existance. Nobody wants perfect freedom. Nobody wants to live in a society where you have the 'freedom' to murder somebody. In fact, the whole idea of organized society is to restrict freedom, in order to promote utility.

So you lose your freedom to murder someone but you gain the liberty associated with living in a civil society.

If ultimate freedom means primitivism (which is what you're equating it with), then I'm glad we don't have it.

Who was talking about the Democrats? You're a fucking moron Memorize. And for your information, I don't support the Dems either. I advocate a boycott of both major parties. Not that any of this is at all relevant to the stated topic.

Looks to be largely the same old shit we got from the GOP when Bush was in power. Aggressive foreign policy, xenophobia, economic policy that shafts the poor, and a theocratic legal doctrine.

At 9/23/10 02:53 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: I don't think supporters of that "same old shit", which comprise a clear majority of the population,

A clear majority of the population? Which population? The US population? If so you're dead wrong. Sorry

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.ht m

At 9/21/10 11:05 AM, Drakim wrote: Could the US do the same except start telling other countries what leaders then should elect and what laws they should pass, with the threat of economical sanctions that would hurt the country?

You are aware that the US government already does this right? That's what the sanctions on Cuba are all about. They basically told the Cubans that if they didn't overthrow Castro's government that they'd continue to impose murderous sanctions against them (again, the goal was apparently regime change), resulting in starvation, death due to lack of medical supplies, etc. The same thing happened in Iraq, with the comprehensive sanctions that killed over 500,000 Iraqi children. Apparently this is acceptable because they were complicit in the reign of Saddam Hussein. And of course, there are many other cases, but I won't go into them for fear of derailing the topic.

These policies are minor compared to past policies, but they share a theme commonly expressed in American foreign policy: that we are the boss of the world, and that foreign sovereignty is only legitimate when it doesn't conflict with American interests. Again, check the historical record. This kind of thing is nothing new.

Though I might add another point that you might or might not have noticed. That this bill doesn't seem to be being pushed by one particular party over the other. It would seem that this legislation is very much a 'bi-partisan' effort. So we can add this to the catalog of evidence that shows that neither of the two large parties really represent the interests of the people.

The Israeli's don't want peace. If they did, they'd give the Palestinians (with the backing of nearly the entire world) what they want. Namely: sovereignty over the occupied territories (with minor and mutual adjustments to the borders, this includes east Jerusalem), complete withdrawal of Iraqi military forces from the occupied territories, the withdrawal of settlements from the occupied territories, the removal of the illegal 'security' walls from the occupied territories, and an end to the economic restrictions (ie, the illegal blockade of Gaza) placed on the occupied territories.

Right of return is a point of contention, but the Palestinians have shown their willingness to leave that out of an immediate peace agreement, as represented by the talks at Taba. The Israeli's refuse to accept any of this, preferring to continue expansion into the territories over their own national security. If they did accept them, they would be begging their big brother (the US) to keep vetoing UN peace settlements (big brother US protect us from the meanies! they want to actually make peace with the Palestinians!). These particular peace talks are doomed to fail for several reasons:

1. The Palestinians are not being properly represented. Hamas, has no representation at the talks whatsoever, and Israel refuses to acknowledge them. They prefer to do negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, who is a president out of term who faces significant opposition within his own party.

2. Even assuming Abbas as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, they've been forced into a very poor position by the US and Israel. Obama has threatened action against Palestine if the PNA doesn't comply with the negotiations. And these particular talks were announced publicly before the Palestinian authorities were even notified. Of course, this forced Abbas into a situation where he really couldn't refuse to enter the talks.

3a. The Israeli's refuse to compromise. They continue to demand things that are of little significance to a pragmatic solution, like a recognition of Israel as the 'legitimate state of the jewish people'. Right, well nobody in the Arab world wants to agree to that, and for good reason, because they would be legitimizing their slaughter, torture, and displacement at the hands of the Zionist movement. What they have agreed to is a peace settlement among mutually recognized borders, which is all that matters for a pragmatic solution. Recognizing another state's "right to exist" is something that's completely irrelevant and virtually unheard of in international politics.

3b. Aside from the unreasonable preconditions set on the debate ('right to exist' among others), The Israelis refuse to make even a temporary compromise on the construction of settlements in the West Bank. The current freeze is set to end later this month, and Netanyahu announced that the freeze will not be expanded. Abbas has repeatedly asserted that if the Israeli's did not extend the freeze he would withdraw. So it looks like that's how this is going to end.

And there are other areas where Israel and the US refuse to compromise with the rest of the world on a settlement. But there are so many points of contention that it's not even worth listing them all. Needless to say, the US and Israel didn't call these talks to try and resolve the conflict, but rather called the talks to create the illusion of progress in order to satiate the western world. It gives the media (both in the US and Israel) good propaganda material that they can use to make the Palestinians look like fiendish brutes unwilling to compromise on anything, unlike the vigilant and just leaders of the West (Israel and the US) who are bending over backwards to try and offer these monsters a compromise.

Of course, for those of us who have been following the actual events of the conflict know that this is completely untrue. The vast majority of 'terrorism' in this conflict has been directed at the Palestinians, who are still constantly bombed, starved, displaced, and otherwise humiliated and oppressed by the Israeli occupants. By far the worst war crimes have been committed by Israel, who continues to kidnap civilians from the occupied territories, including women and children; continues to jail and torture protesters (even peaceful protesters); continues to build security walls further segregate the palestinians; continues to block essential supplies (food, medical equipment, and construction materials among other things) from entering the Gaza strip; continues to seize control of valuable water resources and arable land for settlements; and continues to bulldoze civilian villages in order to make way for more Jewish settlements.

"Peace talks." What a joke. The US-Israeli interests here aren't invested in peace. They're invested, as always, in dominance and expansion. These talks may delay violence, but they will not prevent it. More Israeli aggression is on the horizon. And those of us who bother to be aware, can do nothing but protest fecklessly and watch these horrific events come to pass.

The Republicans (and Dems) who support this are just making empty threats. If there's any real legislative attempt to stop this from happening it's going to get shot down in federal court and everyone knows it. Just let them build their mosque and move on people.

At 8/15/10 03:31 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Actually, Mc Donalds does have this sorted out. they provide nutritional information on their website and where I live it is on the wall and on every placemat or so.

But again, that doesn't necessarily satisfy conditions of perfect or near perfect information. In order to do that, not only would the information need to be available, but the parents would need to actually read it and have the capacity to interpret it. So even if all relevant nutritional information pertaining to the happy meal foods were available, and received by the parents; the parent's would still need to have the capacity to make good use of that information.

Most parent's don't understand that >35 g of fat a day is considered excessive, even for an adult, let alone a small child. Most parent's don't understand that eating 2g of sodium or more a day is a potential health risk (not to mention, addictive). I mean, we live in a culture that is generally somewhat hostile against the idea of a healthy diet. There has been some serious flak produced via the mainstream media, against 'health freaks' , vegans, etc. It's ridiculous, the barriers against making educated dietary decisions are deeply rooted within our culture.

Moving on to the actual health information that mcdonalds provides. I find it detestable that they portray happy meals with milk and apples instead of the traditional frys and soda. Which, as we all know, is the standard happy meal (yes, even today). But even the supposedly healthy "cheeseburger happy meal" with apples and milk has somewhere around 900mg of sodium in it. If you switch out the apples for fry's and the milk for soda the sodium comes close to 1100mg of sodium, with something like 25-30g of fat. In one meal? Ridiculous.

And again, this might all be justifiable if there really no subversive elements to the advertisements that surround this food, but there are. McDonald's commercials portray their consumers as fit, active, healthy, etc, and these are all blatant lies. To top it off they target their addictive, ridiculously unhealthy products at children, through subconscious associations of mcdonalds with being 'fun', 'hip', 'cool', whatever. It's wrong.

At 8/15/10 03:57 PM, LordZeebmork wrote: Ah, but are the sugars, fats, and salts present in similar levels to Happy Meal burgers?

Yes. God forbid you be assed to actually do your own research and discover this yourself. Happy meals contain the same essential properties of the vast majority of mcdonald's food. Including high sodium, high fat, and other more minute (but essentially unhealthy) properties like HFCS.

Is that because of some natural failure on the part of the consumers, or because of the consumers' expectation that the government will protect them?

The former. Even if the latter was true, it's a non factor. Taking away government food safety regulations isn't going to lead people into being more responsible consumers, its going to lead to them looking towards some new organization. In other words, verifications of safety via FDA, USDA inspection will be replaced with inspection via some third party (most likely conglomerated with mcdonalds or some other sect of the fast food industry). People look for ways to relieve themselves of the responsibility of thinking for themselves. This is just how human behavior functions.

The resistance isn't extreme and the knowledge required is minimal.

Assertions based on nothing more than your own personal bias. The fact of the matter is that unless you've taken a college course in biology, and have been exposed to the various studies revealing the health detriments of high fat foods, high sodiums foods, HFCS, rGBH growth hormones, chemical preservatives, and on and on, it's unlikely that you have the capacity to fully understand the health detriments of fast food. "Fast food is bad for you" means nothing unless it's given context, and all too frequently that message is outshouted by the advertising world, which works to portray McDonald's customers as hardcore athletes and dainty models.

There's no immediate advantage to eating healthy, there's no immediate disadvantage to eating unhealthy. Add in the fact that messages about the 'healthiness' of McDonalds are conflicted in the mind of the average consumer + the time/price utility of McDonalds itself, and it's clear that the system is rigged against the consumer making a truly healthy decision. Especially so when the consumer we're talking about is a child, who's only information pertaining to fast food has come from what they've seen from advertisements on television.

Ah, but what am I saying. Stopping these subversive advertising practices would be a textbook infringment on Mcdonald's god given right to market poisonous foods to children. We can't have that. I guess the children will have to die on principle.

At 8/15/10 02:25 PM, LordZeebmork wrote:

so you can't use that to say that McDonald's food, or even any fast food, is addictive. blah blah blah It also doesn't say how the food was given to the rats

Except for the fact that the same sugars, fats, and salts present within the foods given to the rats are present at similar levels within foods served at McDonald's. Furthermore, proper methodology was followed. Seperate rats were given seperate foods, control groups were present, doses were controlled etc. If you had been diligent enough to check for this you would have known.

Also, the article says absolutely nothing about reproduction of results

The burden of proof is on the opposing side to recreate the results. If you don't believe the results of the study are accurate, do your own experiment.

pointed out that this lack of parental responsibility is a societal problem

Only it's not. It's a behavioral problem. Consumers have repeatedly shown that they can't be held responsible for obtaining perfect or near perfect information about the commodities they purchase. It's not feasible to expect parents to be omnipotent about everything they let their kids consume, or furthermore, to be omnipotent about everything responsible for influencing their child's behavior (brainwashing advertisments). Parents, like most human beings, take the path of least resistance. If their kid is crying and screaming about how they want McDonalds, and the parent largely doesn't have information pertaining to the full extent of the health detriments of eating at McDonalds, then you're putting the consumer (the parent) at an inherent disadvantage.

In other words, you're placing the consumer in a position where there's extreme resistance in the direction of wise, educated, self interested decision making, and then blaming the victim for not being an all-knowing god when the system fails.

100% support yurgenburgen's argument in this thread. Fast food like that served at McDonald's is:

1. Physically addictive
2. Targeted at kids

The moral implications of this should be clear. Anyone who is making an argument that this is a matter of personal responsibility is drastically oversimplifying the situation here. Humans have certain behavior's, they react to certain stimuli. If society is leading consumers to feed their kids highly addictive, unhealthy foods, then clearly there is a failing in society. Blaming this failure on human nature is irresponsible, since human nature is unalterable while society on the other hand, is.

I for one support San Francisco's efforts to protect their consumers.

At 8/15/10 11:39 AM, adrshepard wrote: That is complete bullshit, no matter what the "studies" might say.

Can I just say, I love how you put the word 'studies' inside of quotes? Damn those liberals! Who do they think they are with their fancy "science" and their fancy "scientific method", performing "studies" and coming to factual, scientifically represented conclusions. I hate them! Why can't they base their conclusions on biased preconceptions like I do?

If it were anything but a negligible effect found only by advanced testing, these foods that have been consumed for thousands of years would already be associated with those effects.

Foods containing highly processed, condensed amounts of salt and fat have been 'consumed for thousands of years'? Wow, I never knew that. I learn all sorts of things reading your posts man!

At 8/11/10 12:02 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: If by the profit motive you mean greed, then yes. But blaming social problems on greed is as irresponsible as blaming architectural problems on gravity. changing the architecture will enable a structure to withstand even with the existence of gravity, but you cannot construct anything that will reduce gravity.

This is far beyond greed. It's just mindless consumerism, facilitated by a system that promotes and rewards mindless consumerism. Consumerism is not a 'law' of human nature, it's something that we're psychologically adapted to by our culture. So no, I don't blame the flaws of global capitalism on human nature, I blame them on a system that advocates ever expanding consumption regardless of human costs that are incurred as a result.

So to tie into your analogy, free market capitalism is akin to a building constructed not to withstand gravity, but to aid gravity in the building's distruction. It is a system that is designed to fail. And that would explain why it fails often.

So when i say that the problem of patents falls on the state I am really saying that the problem lies in the inter-subjective consensus...

In your society there can be no consensus against the will of the corporations. How could there be? The masses have no feasible means by which they can educate themselves of the flaws within the corporatist system. Advertisement based media, along with other pressures from the corporate world, ensure that free media is practically non-existant.

I get the feeling you aren't thinking this through.

I get a feeling you're not thinking this through. Most US taxes come from the rich anyways. It's not a matter of 'stealing' money via taxation, it's a matter of stiffling competition and making markets uncompetetive. Lets make a hypothetical situation here that takes place in AnCap society:

Lets say the US becomes an Anarcho-Capitalist society. The federal government is overthrown, local governments are privatized, in some places new voluntary governments spring up, etc etc. The first thing the corporations are going to do is start lobbying the new voluntary governments. It's actually really easy. They'd just subsidize governments that support their interests. Through these subsidies, the governments would be able to slash costs and drive out competition. Then, once subsidies became a neccesity to maintain a government while charging the standard market rate, corporations would start using their investments within the local governments to put pressure on them to act in favor of corporate interests.

Would there be subsidies? probably not. But there would be changes in policies. court injunctions would be launched at labor strikes. exclusive property rights would be passed on to priveledged corporations. Safety regulations would be targeted at small business, while keeping their distance from big business. Basically, the end result would be tyranny on a scale never before seen.

businesses do not have free will, they will attempt to earn money in the way that is easiest for them

Right, and the easiest way is always force. And there will always be a vessel for that force. Even in Anarcho-Capitalism, even in Minarchism. The removal of the state from a system that advocates heirarchies by it's very nature is an impossible, utopian, and naive pursuit. The true solution lies in correcting the fundamental flaw of the system: the profit motive. Remove that, and you'll have resolved the bulk of the world's problems.

At 8/10/10 06:29 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I said that the high seed prices were maintained by patents, you can lay blame upon the your precious 'government' for having enforced the patents

I could also lay the blame on the government for establishing a legal basis for corporations as a legal entity all together. But I won't, because it's a moot point. Patents would exist in the system you propose. Corporate personhood would exist in the system you propose. Monsanto's price fixing practices and their resulting bloodshed is the a direct result of the corrupting influence inherent within the profit motive. Which would exist with or without the state.

No corporation would be so stupid as to pay out of it's own pocket to go city to city hiring expensive hit-men to make sure that people aren't buying products that are similar to the ones they sell, plus the cost of isolation.

Strawman. They wouldn't need to hire hitmen, they'd just hire the local judicial system to rule in their favor. They'd put 'market governments' in their pockets through use of subsidies, and their inclusive financial pressures.

the fact remains that if the state is, at present, solely in the business of creating a system of patents and enforcing them, they are responsible for the consequences of those patents.

At who's leisure? Big capital. Placing the blame solely on the state is naive, when it's clear that the state is driven by big business.

At 8/10/10 10:34 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I never said these SORT of things would never be attempted. I just said that given enough time compatibility will become the norm.

Given enough time we're all dead, so it's a moot point. If a company goes out of business or a certain practice falls out of use AFTER a tremendous amount of damage has been done, I wouldn't consider it to be a 'triumph' of the capitalist free market. If your whole argument here is that 'well sure, uncompetitive market practices may be bankrupting the lower and middle class right now, BUT don't worry because 4 or 5 years down the line i'm sure the market will naturally fix it' then you should know, that just ain't flying.

First, Monsanto profits mainly from it's power to patent it's individual seeds. Your favorite agency in the world is in charge of "whacking" farmers that attempt to duplicate the seeds Monsanto has produced.

My favorite agency in the world? As if a patent office wouldn't exist in your utopian anCap paradise? That's hilarious, not only would protections for intellectual property exist (huge demand for them from giant corporations), they would probably be even further reaching and more brutally enforced than they are by today's state.

At 8/9/10 04:48 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: We don't often see websites, for example, that can only be accessed unless you have a particular web provider, or computer, and with certain limits (and given technological change) channel providers and channels.

No, but we do see video games tailored to certain hardware specs. Many games cannot be properly run on both ATI and Nvidia graphics cards. We do see exclusivity for many software products towards certain operating systems. Linux and OSX lag far behind MS Windows in this regard (one of the main reasons the OS is able to fix it's price so high).

What do you even mean to prove by using websites and browsers as an example? First of all, it's not true. For many years when netscape was having wars with browsers like IE, the different browsers would provide 'exclusive' html tags that could be used to program websites accessed in their respective browsers. The result was a ruthlessly inefficient code system where in most cases programmers would actually have to create TWO versions of a website just to make the website accessible to users of both browsers. We're still recovering from that little debacle.

You note that we don't often see websites catered to a specific browser these days. Well yeah, what motivation would the browsers have these days to force exclusivity? There's no profit in browsers anymore. They're all free. That's a terrible example to invoke. If you want to try and prove wrong the notion that exclusivity is a widespread issue in a capitalist free market, you'll need to look at for profit industries.

Like the GE agricultural industry. If I were you I would totally point out how Monsanto totally does notgenetically engineer it's seeds to be only grow if you use Monsanto fertilizers and Monsanto pesticides (also, I would note how this has totally not bankrupted thousands of farmers in India). Or you might make mention of how Blockbuster totally did not cut deals with Warner Bros, Sony Pictures, and 20th century Fox for exclusivity on new releases for a month after launch, in an attempt to drive it's competitors out of business. Or you could talk about how the cell phone industry is certainlynotcompletely dependent on the idea of exclusivity (you definitely don't have to subscrite to at&t to get an iphone, you definitely don'thave to be a customer of verizon to get a droid. no sir).

Oh wait, that entire last paragraph was a lie and all those things really do happen. Whoopsie!

J. D. Rockefeller was only able to establish his brutal monopoly over the oil market due to collusion with the US major railroad freighters (united under a market cartel at the time). He jacked up the prices for his competitors while keeping them low for himself. I mean there are cases like this all throughout the history of capitalism.

Just in recent history, Intel was sued for colluding with manufacturers to try and cut off it's main competitor AMD from essential manufacturing resources. It was a "we'll buy from you, but you have to promise not to sell to our competitors" kind of thing.

It's not really that hard to dispel the myth of 'perfect competition' within a free market. The truth is, the bigger a corporation gets, the larger it's influence as a de facto government body becomes. It gains privileges, just through manipulation of market institutions, which allow it to make markets much less competetive than they would naturally be. And this is even before we touch on the issue of state collusion.

Anyways. Good post, enjoyable read. Expect to be attacked by a bunch of Libertarians who have little to no idea what they're talking about.

At 7/28/10 06:34 PM, adrshepard wrote: America and all its pursuits for the sake of financial equality and global unity?

How can you honestly believe this? The US has stood for the exact opposite throughout almost all of it's history. I mean, the times the US military has intervened in a foreign country for the sole purpose of pursuing it's own business interests are too many to count. To name a few: the Phillipines, Nicaragua, Cuba, Vietnam, Iran. I can't think of a single time in all of the US's history where it has militarily intervened in a foreign country for the sake of "financial equality and global unity".

I mean, just reading that pisses me off. It's so incredibly misinformed and detached from reality. Get off the koolaid. For your own sake.

At 7/21/10 02:20 PM, Korriken wrote: thats one problem that can occur. many others to come, like STDs and unwanted pregnancy and not even knowing the father's real name to track his sorry ass down to make him pay.

Maybe, but those are all problems that are independent of the sex itself (this includes the OP post). I just don't understand the pejorative slant you're putting on casual sex. Why should a woman be ridiculed because she let someone stick a penis in her? It's so ridiculously petty.

At 7/21/10 12:25 PM, Korriken wrote: given that the woman (from what I understand) has sex with the guy the DAY SHE MET HIM? She's just a slut then. If not, this is a SHINING example of why people should not have sex before marriage. This problem is easily avoided by keeping your legs closed.

Whats wrong with having sex the day you meet someone? You come across as a really bitter virgin

At 7/11/10 02:26 PM, TheMason wrote: Musician,

One of the things I find fascinating about your argument (and makes it appropriate for this thread) is you admit you are unfamiliar with the events I'm talking about...and yet you make an argument in defense of Global Climate Change Theory.

Mason,

You're the only person I know who could possibly confuse skepticism over specific uncited facts within your argument as an admittance that I am unfamiliar with the glacial carbon cycle you are referring to. By the way, you appear to be wrong about the last major rise in CO2 within the atmosphere being 250 thousand years ago, I have found, after some additional research, that it was in fact 125 thousand years ago. And that kids, is why you shouldn't gather facts from Rush Limbaugh

What this means is no glaciers actually invalidates your entire theory.

So my whole argument flew right over your head then. I never said that there weren't such glaciers, there certainly are. What I said is that they have not been releasing GHGs. If this recent and dramatic rise in CO2 within the atmosphere is really attributable to the natural glacial cycle, why can't the supposed 'skeptics' point out examples of where carbon was released in the past from these ancient ice sheets? The answer is simple: the are no significant examples of this happening. The only feasible explanation for the dramatic rise in CO2 levels within the atmosphere are man made carbon emissions.

If you're interested in actually learning what you're talking about, you can read this. It's a peer reviewed scientific paper that was, you know, actually written by scientists; as opposed to conservative talk radio hosts.

Glacial-Interglacial Atmospheric CO2 Change -The Glacial Burial Hypothesis

At 7/10/10 05:16 PM, TheMason wrote: Ice core samples going back 750,000-1,000,000 years show a spike in CO2 levels and temperatures at regular intervals of about 250,000 years. Now the last spike was 250,000 years ago...which means we are living at the time that the geological record predicts another spike in CO2 levels and temperatures through natural processes totally unrelated to man

250,000 years ago (if that really was the last time the earth experienced serious rises in CO2 level, I haven't fact checked your claim yet) the fluctuating temperatures caused by increases in sun activity melted ancient glaciers releasing huge amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere.

Now please, if this really is a repeat of what has happened naturally in the past, where exactly are these glaciers that are releasing thousands of tons of GHGs like Carbon and Methane into the atmosphere?

Oh that's right, they don't exist, (not just yet anyways) and we have in fact confirmed that the only possible source for the massive increase of CO2 in the atmosphere are human contributed emissions.

At 7/8/10 05:02 AM, satanbrain wrote: we risk our soldiers life, we do everything to minimize it.

LOL. Look up the "Dahiya doctrine" on google.

At 7/5/10 01:53 PM, adrshepard wrote: I just think it's funny how many anti-blockade people here think economic growth and good housing is an innate human right.

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel as an occupier is legally bound to provide adequate medical and food supplies to the Gazan people, which according to the UN they haven't. Strict bans on certain kinds of food has led to an unbalanced Gazan diet, which has caused a series of nutritional disorders throughout the population. Hospitals are in high demand but low supply. There's about 133 hospital beds for every 100,000 people, and that number may be lower now since the IDF has a major hardon for blowing up hospitals. Electricity, which is used to power refrigerators, air conditioners, ovens, and other necessary utilities has been severely restricted and rationed by the IDF.

And of course the targeted attacks on their economy through the banning of seeds, fishing nets, etc has insured that the entire region is becoming increasingly dependent on Israeli aid.

The unfunny part is that those who demand Israel drop the blockade are essentially defending Hamas's right to commit violent acts against Israel and abduct its soldiers.

How is rightfully calling out Israel for it's deliberate attacks on the people of palestine in any way relate to defending Hamas? Lets say, for example, that israel bends to international pressure and begins allowing seeds and fishing nets back into Gaza. What then? The Palestinians make seed and fish rockets? Or maybe your argument will be that a stable economy will be used to fund Hamas' military efforts, therefore Israel is completely justified in complete obliterating a countries economy, leaving many in horrible living conditions? It sounds like an argument you'd make.

It doesn't really matter anyways. Hamas' contraband tunnels under the Egyptian border insure that it has plenty of supplies to arm and feed it's troops. Not to mention build those rockets. And what's left over is sent to the palestinian people, winning hearts and minds. Hell, if I lived in palestine I'd probably be a Hamas' supporter too. While the IDF has been conducting a campaign of terrorism against the palestinian people, Hamas has been building hospitals and supplying rare and desperately needed resources. Israel's pants on head retarded policies have not only caused a major humanitarian crisis, they've allowed Hamas to secure it's position of power in the gaza strip.

Those are the only two policies that Hamas has to denounce, and all the "horrible suffering" brought about by the blockade will be over. Yet, the group refuses to do so

I love how you put "horrible suffering" in quotes. How about we deport you to Gaza for a year or two? See how you like it?

Hamas did denounce both of those things in the past. During the ceasefire that was recently broken by Israel, Hamas didn't launch a single rocket, nor kidnap a single Israeli, even the Israeli government acknowledges this. Contrary to popular belief in the US, it was not Hamas who broke the cease fire, but rather Israel who invaded Gaza and killed 6 members of Hamas on Nov 4th 2008. After two months of a broken cease fire it was Hamas who stepped forward and offered to renew the cease fire, not Israel, and it was Israel who rejected the agreement, not Hamas. Last time I checked, the offer for a cease fire still stands. If Israel really wants to protect it's citizens, and has no other motives, then why does it not renew the cease fire?

according to "humanitarians", the welfare of the Gazans suddenly becomes the Israeli's responsibility and not that of their elected government.

Because under the Fourth Geneva conventions, of which Israel is a signatory, they do. And besides that think of the moral argument you're making.

If today, in America, an elementary school was taken over by terrorists, how would we respond to the situation? Would we carpet bomb the building killing everyone inside? Would we fire white phosphorus, a chemical that can cause third degree burns when it comes into contact with bare skin, around the building and then send in the US military into the school to shoot everything that moves in a threatening way? No, of course not. If we did either there would be a national outrage, and rightfully so: these are crimes against humanity.

But for some reason it's tolerated when Israel does it to Palestine.

You've made it pretty clear in the past that your philosophy is that a nation should do what is in it's best interests as a nation, despite the human costs other nations might suffer. But if that's true, should a million african babies be killed if it saves the life of one american civilian? Should a thousand Palestinian homes be demolished if it means that one additional Israeli will be saved? Should a billions of foreigners starve to death and live below their means, just so one american corporation can meet it's profit goals? This is why we have legislation against war crimes in the first place. Because as a world society, we have to draw a line at what is acceptable and what isn't. You can't slaughter thousands of people just to prepare a land for annexation and colonization by your own people, because the human costs sustained by the world as a whole are too high to justify the advantages your nation incurs.

It's is through this line of thinking that many denounce Israels actions against Gaza. Because the situation in Gaza, which borders outright genocide, does not justify the minor advantages that Israel might incur.

At 7/4/10 05:49 PM, Lidov wrote: As I said before there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza

Did you seriously just link to a blog. I mean like... seriously? I can't even bring myself to debate you. You obviously have no sense for even finding the sources where you're getting your information from.

The source your blog quotes is an article from the Telegraph. Which hilariously, in its full context, seems to argue the opposite of what the blog is trying to claim, that the Israeli MFA is just shoveling out a bunch of propaganda and that Palestine is indeed heavily stricken by poverty due to the Israeli embargo.

Anyways that's as far as i'm going to go. This isn't worth my time. If you have any sense of integrity in your views you'll look up something called the Goldstone Report, and actually read it. Then maybe you'll look less disingenuous when you're arguing such untenable talking points.

God who am I kidding. You're not going to read the report. You're not going to read anything that doesn't fit in with you're narrow little prescribed world view. Fuck this thread, none of you kids have the first idea what you're talking about.

Anything written by Memorize.

Seriously, what is wrong with that guy?