Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Uh...no. You can also add Glenn Beck to that Platonistic pile of rhino feces. Glenn Beck is really a socialist in libertarian's clothing(see article posted a few pages back) and a professional mystic(check his faith based premises).
I am nothing like Glenn Beck; though I do know my history of atrocity and I'm quite confident that I(and many of you) could oust him in an open debate.
Badbird
Never banned
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Badbird
Never banned
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
Not that I'm challenging the article's claim (because I know nothing about the issue), but that website looks like fucking InfoWars in health news form.
edit: just to illustrate my point, the only external reference in the article is this
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
So basically neither you nor the guy who wrote that article are familiar with what 'socialism' means.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Or maybe you've been duped by whatever college textbook definition you've ostensibly chosen to embrace.
As I've stated before, OBAHma falls under all fours standards of the definition:
Using the four definitions of socialism provided below, even a cursory glance at Barack Obama cannot fail to yield the conclusion that his political framework for viewing the proper role of government in society is socialism. There can be little argument that Barack Obama is a socialist. But Republicans like John McCain and George W. Bush would do well not to apply this term as one of derision- they are socialists too. More on that later. The following list of definitions includes corresponding explanations as to why Obama fits each of them.
Socialism has been variously defined as:
* Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. [1]
Any Americans paying attention during the 2008 Presidential Campaign or to any of Obama's rhetoric in the aftermath of his electoral victory should be able to recall that the solutions he is proposing take for granted that it is the proper role of a centralized government to plan and control the economy in order to strengthen and improve it. Can anyone argue that Obama, McCain, Bush, and most contemporary politicians have not assumed it as their proper role to plan and control the economy? Just read the economics issue page at Mr. Obama's website. It is filled to overflowing with "tax this... subsidize that... invest here... fix that."
You may object that the definition above implies total government ownership of property and the means of production, and that Barack Obama does not advocate this. If you do so object, then I must ask what it means for us to own our property. When a government can control, appropriate, distribute, and dispose of a very significant amount of its citizens' property without their individual consent, is it not the operating premise that government owns everything and that you use your property only with government's tacit consent, and only as long as government doesn't presently wish to revoke your rights to this or that portion of your property? In such a society government presumes to be lord of all and the law of the land is "render unto Caesar whatever he says is his."
* The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. [1]
This definition is another, quicker answer to such an objection as that above. The word "socialism" does not necessarily imply explicit, total ownership of property by the state, but a society in transition from capitalism to communism, an economy increasingly controlled and governed by the laws and policies of the state. An entirely controlled economy would be more like true communism in action, an entirely free and uncontrolled one would be more like capitalism. The much-pined-for "middle ground" of a mixed market economy with the productive power of capitalism, but also plenty of government controls and intervention, is more akin to socialism. Obama and his political allies on "the American Left" are not alone in supporting such a state of affairs.
* An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. [2]
Here is another definition which serves as an excellent rebuttal to any objections that Barack Obama is not a socialist because he does not support an explicit and total government takeover of all the major industries and means of production in America. This definition really helps to clarify the nuances behind the meanings of the words "socialism" and "communism." Again, a quick reference to Obama's issue pages shows that he is categorically a socialist. It is not only in terms of policy, but in his broader approach to the role of government that Obama is clearly a socialist. For him, change means for government to change things. Fixing the economy means for government to fix the economy. Leading means leading from the Capitol Building and the White House. To Obama and most other politicians, a necessary precondition for prosperity is direct government involvement in the workings of the economy, as opposed to government acting only to maintain a civil society (i.e. one free of aggression).
* A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. [3]
Imagine conducting this survey:
Circle yes or no: Does the following statement accurately describe Barack Obama's message and self-portrayal?
A social reformer who seeks to fundamentally reconstruct American society to create a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.
How many of the respondents do you imagine would circle "yes?" It's practically the bite-sized version of Barack Obama's entire campaign platform. And the key means of this reconstruction of American society that Obama envisions is government control and manipulation of the wealth and property created by its citizens. Can there really be any argument over Obama's socialist agenda? I don't think so because it is categorically true, it's a necessary conclusion based off of our definition of the word "socialist." It's also true that George W. Bush and John McCain are socialists. The three of them are more alike than they are different in their view of government, as few of their passionate supporters as there are who would be willing to admit it.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
I'm pretty sure there is no one in the mainstream media or politics who is truly a socialist. Few people in the world are true socialists. Hell, even the Chinese are not socialists. Socialism is so impractical that it is virtually impossible, thus only the completely delusional are truly socialists.
Also, the meat article is the best example of bad science I've seen in a while. The carcinogen in question (sodium nitrate) is a kind of salt. Salt (in moderation) is not poisonous or cancer causing.
Also, the meat article is the best example of bad science I've seen in a while. The carcinogen in question (sodium nitrate) is a kind of salt. Salt (in moderation) is not poisonous or cancer causing.
Dak
mentat
Just because it is a "kind of salt" doesn't necessarily mean it's good for human consumption. I am not defending the article, I am just saying your reasoning is flawed 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_nitrate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_nitrate
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Dakryn: the food safety issues section of that doesn't explain at all why anyone could consider small amounts of sodium nitrate to be an issue in someone who is healthy otherwise. However, you are definitely correct that just because something is a "salt" doesn't necessarily make it consumable or safe. Lead diacetate, for instance, is a salt formed by treating lead monoxide with acetic acid. As you could guess, it's completely poisonous and will definitely lead to lead poisoning en masse if ingested. Most salts (probably, I don't know the percentage ffs) are likely good for consumption in the amounts they are in various food products (as preservatives, etc.).
But yeah that article is obviously ridiculous
But yeah that article is obviously ridiculous
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
fyi guys... the article is talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_nitrite not sodium nitrate
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
Just because it is a "kind of salt" doesn't necessarily mean it's good for human consumption. I am not defending the article, I am just saying your reasoning is flawed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_nitrate
I already read that article. Nitrites are processed into N-nitroso compounds, some NOC's cause cancer, so what. Everything causes cancer.
EDIT @ PS: I said "in a while" not "in my whole life". Of course climate change is likely a natural phenomenon and "global warming" is based on speculation and not science. That being said, there is far too much pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels and a transition away from them to solar, wind, geothermal, and indeed nuclear energy must begin taking place immediately.
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
First of all, learn how to read. It's sodium nitrite, not sodium nitrate. Second of all, the article notes a correlation (though causation is not established, but still), and you don't undermine that result by simply declaring that salt in moderation is not poisonous or cancer causing. At any rate, if you guys are interested in checking the veracity of the claims made in the article, you might try using something called "google," since the article mentions the very studies from which it's taking those claims. Or are we operating on the principle that something is not true or worth examining because a hotlink wasn't provided for it?
@Prismatic Sphere, a.k.a. Glenn Beck: There's a lot to object to in your post there. I'll reply later.
Saparmurat_Niyazov
Member
My bad, nitrite. I corrected myself already, but I'll do it again so you'll stop whining. I have wasted plenty of time reading research, Primarily that of Ute Nöthlings, regarding the topic, and am not yet convinced that sodium nitrite needs to be banned from processed foods.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Stewart's shitheads are even more clueless than Becks'.
The Rush/Ayn Rand bit was priceless.
The Rush/Ayn Rand bit was priceless.
Last edited by a moderator:
