White House Chef Says Future Food To Be Made From Chemicals, Not Real Food Ingredients

[MightyMightyMezz]

I've screened documentaries at the university on the systematic depopulation of indigenous peoples in El Salvador and Nicaragua bankrolled by Bush's White House (let me tell you they were not handing out condoms.) I've read about the sterilization program in Brasil that was part of that US policy on population control that Kissinger oversaw. I've found out a lot of things that shed light on the motivations of people like Bush and Kissinger, but the intellectual climate here with people like CaveatLector and Restorium2 is so oppressive it can't really be discussed. If it's something they don't believe then it's a conspiracy theory and you are a conspiracy nut regardless the reality of the situation. Once I mentioned Skull&Bones, the powerful and bizarre secret society that the Bush's are members of and was treated like an idiot for being at all concerned. They ran Opium in the 19th century. They dug up Geronimo's skull in the early 20th century and still have it today. Members including Prescott Bush and Herbert Walker collaborated with the Nazis during WWII and had their business confiscated by Congress! Then Prescott went on to become a New York Senator!!! Crazy shiit, but I guess it's me that's out of my mind for thinking about that at all.

Edited August 2, 2012 by MightyMightyMezz

[Restorium2]

then it's a conspiracy theory

 

Saying something is a conspiracy theory isn't a personal attack. When someone says that something is a conspiracy theory, then it means they think that some people are thinking that maybe a group of people got together and did something. Don't take it personal. Some people like to think about conspiracy theories. It's fun. Other people like to take it another step and shoot them down with facts they find. It's fun. Both exercises are healthy for a thinking brain. What isn't healthy is trying to repress either activity by saying they need to change.

[CaveatLector]

I've already done it over and over. Take your own advice and read the thread. Jeeez

No, you haven't done it one single time. Show me a flaw in logic. Saying you don't like or agree with my opinion doesn't mean there is a flaw in my logic. Point to a logical flaw in my arguments. Cut and paste an argument and tell me specifically how it is logically flawed.

[CaveatLector]

I've screened documentaries at the university on the systematic depopulation of indigenous peoples in El Salvador and Nicaragua bankrolled by Bush's White House (let me tell you they were not handing out condoms.) I've read about the sterilization program in Brasil that was part of that US policy on population control that Kissinger oversaw. I've found out a lot of things that shed light on the motivations of people like Bush and Kissinger, but the intellectual climate here with people like CaveatLector and Restorium2 is so oppressive it can't really be discussed. If it's something they don't believe then it's a conspiracy theory and you are a conspiracy nut regardless the reality of the situation. Once I mentioned Skull&Bones, the powerful and bizarre secret society that the Bush's are members of and was treated like an idiot for being at all concerned. They ran Opium in the 19th century. They dug up Geronimo's skull in the early 20th century and still have it today. Members including Prescott Bush and Herbert Walker collaborated with the Nazis during WWII and had their business confiscated by Congress! Then Prescott went on to become a New York Senator!!! Crazy shiit, but I guess it's me that's out of my mind for thinking about that at all.

What was that you were saying about information and beliefs and opinions yesterday? Take some of your own advice. I've heard that Geronimo skull story before. There is no conclusive proof of your claim that anyone has the skull. You read that somewhere and just assume it's true,

[MightyMightyMezz]

then it's a conspiracy theory

 

Saying something is a conspiracy theory isn't a personal attack. When someone says that something is a conspiracy theory, then it means they think that some people are thinking that maybe a group of people got together and did something. Don't take it personal. Some people like to think about conspiracy theories. It's fun. Other people like to take it another step and shoot them down with facts they find. It's fun. Both exercises are healthy for a thinking brain. What isn't healthy is trying to repress either activity by saying they need to change.

 

Yeah, did I say using the term conspiracy theory is a personal attack? Here's that pattern again of misrepresenting what people say. It's a fallacy and both you and Caveat do it - a lot. I said the intellectual climate on the board is oppressive. What makes it a personal attack is when you employ the use of ridicule. What makes it worse is when you are ignorant about the thing you are ridiculing others about.

 

 

No, you haven't done it one single time. Show me a flaw in logic. Saying you don't like or agree with my opinion doesn't mean there is a flaw in my logic. Point to a logical flaw in my arguments. Cut and paste an argument and tell me specifically how it is logically flawed.

 

Yes, I have. You deliberately misrepresented my meaning over and over in this very thread. I gave you my definition of the term as I am using it but you kept harping on a totally different meaning. That is called the straw man fallacy. You do it a lot.

 

 

 

What was that you were saying about information and beliefs and opinions yesterday? Take some of your own advice. I've heard that Geronimo skull story before. There is no conclusive proof of your claim that anyone has the skull. You read that somewhere and just assume it's true,

 

I don't really believe in conclusive proof. I always want to maintain some doubt if possible. In the case of Geronimo's skull being robbed by bonesmen there is substantial evidence. An informant gave Apache descendants a photo of the skull with Geronimo's picture displayed next to it as well as a copy of their log book, which describes the grave-robbing mission. Now I'm sure you will seize on minutia like you normally do and destroy any discussion of the greater implications of what Bonesmen being in power means for us. As heinous as stealing Geronimo's skull is there are things Bonesmen have done that affect many, many more lives. How do you feel about the seizure of Union Banking and the subsequent return of its assets prior to the incredible rise of the Bush political dynasty?

 

 

[Restorium2]

MEZ QUOTE:

Yeah, did I say using the term conspiracy theory is a personal attack? Here's that pattern again of misrepresenting what people say.

 

 

 

MEZ QUOTE:

If it's something they don't believe then it's a conspiracy theory and you are a conspiracy nut regardless the reality of the situation.

 

end quote.

 

I figured since it was your main beef that you considered it a personal attack. Why else would you think it's grounds for your idea that we are breaking the rules here? What other rule could it have broken? Or do you want to write some new rules for posting to fit your problem?

[MightyMightyMezz]

When you call someone a nut or whatever term you are using it's a personal attack. How is it not? Did I say anything about rules? Lol, you use the straw man in almost every post you make.

[Restorium2]

When you call someone a nut or whatever term you are using it's a personal attack. How is it not? Did I say anything about rules? Lol, you use the straw man in almost every post you make.

First you said it was an attack. Then you said it wasn't. Now you say it was an attack.

 

The rules are the only thing you have. You need to use a rule to make us post different. Or just ban us for no reason. You better be looking at the rules when you are complaining, over and over, about a fellow member(s). Otherwise, what are you doing?

[MightyMightyMezz]

Now you're lying plain and simple. What is said is not a personal attack is using the term conspiracy theory. It's the straw man once again.

[Restorium2]

Now you're lying plain and simple. What is said is not a personal attack is using the term conspiracy theory. It's the straw man once again.

Calling someone a liar is a personal attack. You do it regulary. Try to change and follow the rules.

[MightyMightyMezz]

Stop lying and I'll stop saying it.

[knucklehead bob]

Can we lock this P C please ?

[MightyMightyMezz]

Can we lock this P C please ?

 

I wouldn't mind.

[CaveatLector]

Yeah, did I say using the term conspiracy theory is a personal attack? Here's that pattern again of misrepresenting what people say. It's a fallacy and both you and Caveat do it - a lot. I said the intellectual climate on the board is oppressive. 1. What makes it a personal attack is when you employ the use of ridicule. What makes it worse is when you are ignorant about the thing you are ridiculing others about.

 

 

 

2. Yes, I have. You deliberately misrepresented my meaning over and over in this very thread. I gave you my definition of the term as I am using it but you kept harping on a totally different meaning. That is called the straw man fallacy. You do it a lot.

 

 

 

3. I don't really believe in conclusive proof. I always want to maintain some doubt if possible. In the case of Geronimo's skull being robbed by bonesmen there is substantial evidence. An informant gave Apache descendants a photo of the skull with Geronimo's picture displayed next to it as well as a copy of their log book, which describes the grave-robbing mission. Now I'm sure you will seize on minutia like you normally do and destroy any discussion of the greater implications of what Bonesmen being in power means for us. As heinous as stealing Geronimo's skull is there are things Bonesmen have done that affect many, many more lives. How do you feel about the seizure of Union Banking and the subsequent return of its assets prior to the incredible rise of the Bush political dynasty?

 

1. Would that be like calling someone a fascist or at least equating them with one?

2. Again, give me a concrete example of a logical flaw in my arguments--not your theory about some unknown something. Tell me what I said that was not logical.

3. And such is your right. However, others need not adopt your viewpoint in order to be considered "right" or for their positions to be considered worthy.

[MightyMightyMezz]

 

 

1. Would that be like calling someone a fascist or at least equating them with one?

2. Again, give me a concrete example of a logical flaw in my arguments--not your theory about some unknown something. Tell me what I said that was not logical.

3. And such is your right. However, others need not adopt your viewpoint in order to be considered "right" or for their positions to be considered worthy.

 

If you go around repeating propaganda by fascists you might expect someone to point it out. I admit it might have been harsh, but you have ridiculed me as a conspiracy theorist (yes, you do use the term as a form of ridicule) so there is a context for that. If you didn't know that population control policies have been put into place by people like Kissinger for fascist reasons (control of other countries' resources) then maybe you ought to take another look.

 

You keep asking me to point out your logical flaws and I have. If you don't want to accept that you employ the straw man fallacy quite often I can't force you to, but don't keep asking me about it. The Straw Man fallacy: you used it over and over when you refused to accept my clarification of what I meant when I referred to the overpopulation myth.

 

All you've told me about Skull&Bones and Geronimo is "no conclusive proof." Do you think that is any kind of argument? Do you think the photo and log book provided to the Apache descendants was false? Why? Why would Johnathan Bush meet with them and offer a skull supposed to be Geronimo's but obviously that of a child?

Edited August 2, 2012 by MightyMightyMezz

[CaveatLector]

If you go around repeating propaganda by fascists you might expect someone to point it out. I admit it might have been harsh, but you have ridiculed me as a conspiracy theorist (yes, you do use the term as a form of ridicule) so there is a context for that. If you didn't know that population control policies have been put into place by people like Kissinger for fascist reasons (control of other countries' resources) then maybe you ought to take another look.

 

You keep asking me to point out your logical flaws and I have. If you don't want to accept that you employ the straw man fallacy quite often I can't force you to, but don't keep asking me about it. The Straw Man fallacy: you used it over and over when you refused to accept my clarification of what I meant when I referred to the overpopulation myth.

 

 

You're a good one for accusing the use of a straw man. Read what you just wrote! I talk about population management as being likely necesssary and you equate that with fascism and then ridicule me for being fascist. You didn't attack my argument you attacked something altogether different. You called me fascist. You're still doing it. You reference Kissinger and say he advocated population management for fascist reasons. What the heck does that have to do with my argument? NOTHING! Instead of addressing the issue of population management you misrepresent me as a fascist and that is your response. That is a stone cold, 100%, straw man argument. You even said something about how I should move to China if I want population control. Haha, NO straw man there. What the heck does Kissinger's view have to do with anything? It doesn't. That's ridiculous. Telling me WHY population controls were put into place has nothing to do whether population control is necessary. NOTHING! Where do you come up with this stuff? It's like you label population control as evil and bad because someone else advocated it for not-so-savory reasons. Wake up man!

 

The eugenics movement advocated use of birth control or forced sterilization to control the genetic composition of the population. They used birth control for not-so-savory reasons. I suppose that means anyone who uses birth control has the same thinking as eugenics advocates? Under your reasoning, yes. Straw man? Yes!

[MightyMightyMezz]

 

 

You're a good one for accusing the use of a straw man. Read what you just wrote! I talk about population management as being likely necesssary and you equate that with fascism and then ridicule me for being fascist. You didn't attack my argument you attacked something altogether different. You called me fascist. You're still doing it. You reference Kissinger and say he advocated population management for fascist reasons. What the heck does that have to do with my argument? NOTHING! Instead of addressing the issue of population management you misrepresent me as a fascist and that is your response. That is a stone cold, 100%, straw man argument. You even said something about how I should move to China if I want population control. Haha, NO straw man there. What the heck does Kissinger's view have to do with anything? It doesn't. That's ridiculous. Telling me WHY population controls were put into place has nothing to do whether population control is necessary. NOTHING! Where do you come up with this stuff? It's like you label population control as evil and bad because someone else advocated it for not-so-savory reasons. Wake up man!

 

The eugenics movement advocated use of birth control or forced sterilization to control the genetic composition of the population. They used birth control for not-so-savory reasons. I suppose that means anyone who uses birth control has the same thinking as eugenics advocates? Under your reasoning, yes. Straw man? Yes!

 

I said you share the favorable view on population control and GMOs as fascists, which is true. My point is that as it has been conceived and implemented it is only necessary from the perspective of controlling resources. From the perspective of a regular human being who wants everyone in the world to be well fed we need to prioritize diverse local food production and clean energy.

 

One of the problems I see here is that you think of population control as an idea that has not been implemented yet, but from my studies I know differently. Indigenous women and children have actually been murdered with US provided weapons and training in this world.

 

 

[BassManD]

I don't see how this is going to end well for us in the long term... like another bubble waiting to bust.

 

[MightyMightyMezz]

I don't see how this is going to end well for us in the long term... like another bubble waiting to bust.

 

 

If the Great Pyramid was built 5,000 years ago I think we can muster the intelligence to feed ourselves. People are pretty smart and with our modern technology it should be no problem to feed many more. Also we should ask ourselves as a species do we have aspirations for expansion beyond this planet?

[BassManD]

As long as our resources hold up we will be ok. As far as getting off this rock, I evolved here and I'd rather stay as long as possible!

[BassManD]

DP

Edited August 2, 2012 by BassManD

[MightyMightyMezz]

Can somebody sum up this thread for me so I don't have to read all eight pages? I must admit, the title scares me so I hope it is mostly off-topic, as regular.

 

I ask because this topic has been reported and I have to execute some action on behalf of the report.

 

It's pretty far off topic. Someone made a passing comment on GM foods early on, Caveat took the opportunity to espouse GM food and population control, I schooled him on population control's fascist origins and he spent the rest of the time being difficult.

[CaveatLector]

I said you share the favorable view on population control and GMOs as fascists, which is true. My point is that as it has been conceived and implemented it is only necessary from the perspective of controlling resources. From the perspective of a regular human being who wants everyone in the world to be well fed we need to prioritize diverse local food production and clean energy.

 

One of the problems I see here is that you think of population control as an idea that has not been implemented yet, but from my studies I know differently. Indigenous women and children have actually been murdered with US provided weapons and training in this world.

The origins of population management are not relevant to this discussion. Not one bit. You threw the fascist comments in to get a dig in and ridicule and set up your straw man argument. It simply doesn't matter who thought it up. That has no bearing on its value whatsoever.

 

And whether it has been "implemented" has nothing to do with whether we need it. Arguing that genocide (which I am assuming you are referring to) is the implementation of population management is also a straw man argument. If you are defining population control as the killing of humans then you are employing a different operational definition than I--obviously. So, once again, you are equivocating on the term "population control." Yet another logic flaw in your argument.

[imiubu]

YAWN