It seems that portions are larger. Why blame companies for the overweight issue? Should the blame go to the person who is putting the food in his/her own mouth?
Posts by Magog
-
30Portions are way too big
by JH inportions are way too big.
would you agree with me that portions that we eat are too big?
today on the news, they said that 1 canadian out of 3 is overweight.
-
-
-
41
Why Do Some Defend the Butcher of Baghdad?
by Perry ina bbc correspondent documentary aired on june 23, 2002, exposed how the iraqi regime staged these processions: instead of burying dead children immediately in accordance with muslim custom, iraqi authorities hold the bodies in cold storage until enough bodies are available to conduct a "parade of dead babies.
"15 in one such event, the iraqi regime exhibited some 60 coffins, decorated with large photographs of the deceased, around martyr square in baghdad while government-controlled demonstrators chanted anti-u.s. slogans and demanded the elimination of un sanctions, all for the benefit of foreign reporters who were present.
on camera, an iraqi identified as ali, described as a former member of saddam's inner circle living in northern iraq, related the account of a taxi driver who had explained to him how it worked: "he went to najaf [a town 100 miles south of baghdad] a couple of days ago.
-
-
Magog
As you go about your business today please remember that in the presidential election, 539,987 more U.S. citizens preferred another man be president.
George Bush won 49% of the popular vote. Al Gore won 50% and 1 % went to others. The margin of error is greater than the margin of victory. In America the Electoral vote counts as the Constitution requires.
Bill Clinton won his first election by 43% of the popular vote, whereas Dole 38%, and 19% to Perrot and others. The majority voted for others, but Mr. Clinton won the Electoral vote as did George Bush. The problem many have with Bush is that they are sore losers, so they deride the man, much as the opposition derided Mr. Clinton.
None of this has anything to do with the Iraq issue that Perry describes. For example, some seem far more concerned with Bush, name-calling him a dictator than they are concerned with the women and children gassed and killed in Iraq. Strange set of priorities some appear to have.
-
41
Why Do Some Defend the Butcher of Baghdad?
by Perry ina bbc correspondent documentary aired on june 23, 2002, exposed how the iraqi regime staged these processions: instead of burying dead children immediately in accordance with muslim custom, iraqi authorities hold the bodies in cold storage until enough bodies are available to conduct a "parade of dead babies.
"15 in one such event, the iraqi regime exhibited some 60 coffins, decorated with large photographs of the deceased, around martyr square in baghdad while government-controlled demonstrators chanted anti-u.s. slogans and demanded the elimination of un sanctions, all for the benefit of foreign reporters who were present.
on camera, an iraqi identified as ali, described as a former member of saddam's inner circle living in northern iraq, related the account of a taxi driver who had explained to him how it worked: "he went to najaf [a town 100 miles south of baghdad] a couple of days ago.
-
-
Magog
It is not so much that people defend Iraq, as much as they are critical of American policy, more notably when that policy is coming from a Republican President. Were this Administration still under Democrat Bill Clinton, the media criticism would be almost mute as it was when Mr. Clinton ordered the American military invasion of Kosovo and Serbia or the bombings in Afghanistan and Somalia. No UN sanctions were sought, but instead Nato under American lead, and including German soldiers helped out Mr. Clinton with his military prowess.
Critics argue that we have no business policing the world, that Iraq is not a proven threat, and that if America goes after Iraq, then why not other bad regimes. Critics have even gotten the demonstrators to chant "No Blood for Oil."
Iraq is a threat to the entire planet. They not only pay reward money to families of terrorists, but openly advertize this benefit. Iraq not only invaded Kuwait, but had plans to invade Saudi Arabia and other Arab oil states because Mr. Hussein wants to control world oil supply. Given Mr. Hussein's track records of controlling food to his own people, we can only imagine what the world would be like were he to control its oil. Were Mr. Hussein to actually possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and have the ability to deliver them, there is little doubt as to what nations would be on his target list.
Weapons inspections were tried on Germany after WWI and prior to the rise of Hitler. They do not work. The rest of the world appeased Hitler until it became too obvious that he must be fought and eliminated. The world is repeating history with Iraq because history is not a good teacher. Each generation has to learn its own lessons over and over again and again.
The world in general claims that by invading Iraq the American and British militaries will be killing innocent people as though these people were targets. Instead they prefer that Iraq be left alone to develop its weapons programs to perfection. Then Iraq will be too powerful to submit to any more weapons inspections. Iraq will then kill our children first before we decide that it becomes too obvious that Mr. Hussein, like Mr. Hitler, must be fought and eliminated.
The "Peace-Niks" sound so very noble, and love to be critical of America because it is chic to do so, or because they find it necessary to appear to be analytical. They even accuse the rest of being suckers for American government propaganda. Yet, upon close review of their arguments one finds them weak and lacking the critical analysis they want us to believe they have.
For example, "No Blood for Oil" chant is supposed to grab our emotions in gut-wrenching fashion and make us believe that all this American administration wants is to find an excuse to seize Iraqi oil for corporate greed. Actaully, it is far cheaper and more convenient to simply buy the oil as we have been doing for many decades. The pay-back period to make up for the cost of war will be so long that it does not make sense to invade Iraq for its oil. This kind of logic betrays the anti-American sentiment among those against war with Iraq as little more than lunacy.
If we listen to the critics, we will let Iraq kill our children first. Maybe then after we carry thousands of coffins through our streets will we find it necessary to take some remedial action and eliminate the threat to our planet. PM Chamberlin of Great Britain had it right all along - Appease, Appease, and Appease some more until the opposition has your face in the dung heap, then maybe they will get the clue that something is wrong with this picture. Maybe it should be the bad guy whose face is rubbed in dung.
-
5
US Exports of Biological Materials to Iraq
by Emiliano inu.s. exports of biological materials to iraq .
the senate committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs has oversight responsibility for the export administration act.
pursuant to the act, committee staff contacted the u.s. department of commerce and requested information on the export of biological materials during the years prior to the gulf war.
-
-
Magog
It seems that some of the cowboys in our national leadership haven't studied enough history, because it damn sure looks like we're about to repeat some of it.
The comparison really does not fit this situation. The USA has never conquored Iraq or any middle eastern nation. The issue is that at one time Iraq was 'friendly' and a potential ally. Mr. Hussein betrayed that trust and misused his military to invade Kuwait. The problem in this case is that the USA is far too trusting and sloppy in its international relationships, and fails to understand the focused and singular goal of radicals, be they found in secular Iraq or Islamic fundamentalists, or any cult-like movement.
The two nations that the USA did conquor, then contributed much to their rebirth and technology, are Japan and Germany. Both of which continue as strong friends and allies of the USA.
Even those with considerable knowledge of history still repeat it, just as those with knowledge of the dangers of smoking and drinking still get lung cancer or drive while drunk. Neither knowledge or law are the recipe for success or avoidance of repeating error. Were these the formula for success, then the historical examples of goodness would likewise be repeated as history repeating itself. No, history of itself is no teacher. Instead, mutual concern and decisive action to stand down weapons, or ceasing the production of anything harmful are the keys to success.
The underlying root to growth of mutual concern is community or national resolve. This is elusive at best precisely because the only thing proven throughout history to hold people together under the banner of mutual concern and resolve is a national threat, such as war.
The only way to have war is to have enemies. How easy are enemies to come by? Just read an ex-JW forum for a couple of weeks and see how many are made almost everyday. Asking nations or individuals not to fight is like asking the sun not to rise. It ain't never gonna happen.
-
131
Last Post - My Most Painful Public Confession
by Amazing inmy most painful confession
note to simon: i will use some expletives, but i hope that they will be retained as this is intended to be an otherwise civil and thoughtful post to all my fellow ex-jws.
please read on, as this is most painful.
-
-
Magog
HS: TH initiated the problem in his first comment to Amazing Nov: 14 on JWO, during a discussion that Amazing was having with another poster:
Amazing go fuck yourself, recent events in the last day, have put me more invovled. If you want to keep this shit up, hope you never meet me fucker. http://www.jehovahswitnessonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=1281&start=0
This response by TH may have come across to Amazing as wholly needless, harsh, cruel, and threatening. On December 5th, in another JWO thread, TH was showing an "open-minded" attitude to some Neo-Nazis when Amazing called him on this, and where we find the 'out of context' quote used by TH above:
Trauma Hound: Let's see, you like to discuss ideas, and be open, and all that nice rhetoric ... yet when I was having a civil discussion with JanH on Nov 14th in Rhonda's thread about supporting Silentlambs ... a calm discussion about my views ... here is your way of discussing ideas:
Quote:
Amazing go fuck yourself, recent events in the last day, have put me more invovled. If you want to keep this shit up, hope you never meet me fucker. http://www.jehovahswitnessonline.com/viewtopic.php?t=1281&start=0
You are a hypocrite, uninformed, and have little more going for you than a "Biker from Hell" mentality. Plain and simple. You have no idea about civil discussion, as your own words bury you. What a laughing stock you make of yourself ... and then you pretend to love the children ... you need to grow up and become human first.
Amazing called him a hypocrite due to what he saw as an unmistakable double standard employed by TH in cuddling up to Neo-Nazis, but being cold to Amazing in another discussion. TH appears to be missing the whole point.
It seems to me in this final post of Amazing's that he used this incident with TH to illustrate the point about how we all have at times pounded on each other, and needlessly so. TH may be missing Amazing's contrite points and the subsequent note to TH not to take this too seriously. It seems that Amazing calling TH a 'wuss' pales in comparison to TH's harsher labeling of Amazing as a "Pedophile Loving Asshole (Clown)."
Since Amazing experienced being molested as a child, as well as witnessing the rape of his sister, I suspect that being called a "Pedophile Loving Assclown" by some ex-JW newbie, after all that Amazing tried to do to get the Justice ball rolling (before the arrival of Bill Bowen), may have been just too hard for Amazing to take. Maybe TH could be the one in this case to try a different approach.
-
51
Norwegians Harm Whales
by Magog innorway to defy ban, resume whale exports to iceland.
by inger sethov .
oslo (reuters) - norway said friday it would defy an international ban on commercial whaling and resume exports of whale meat to iceland after a 14-year break.
-
-
Magog
Dubla, Thanks. You stated thing well.
Jan,
The obvious fact that it was satire does not mean I have to agree with the point it was trying to make.
Fine. Then make your argument about why you don't agree with it. Personally, I don't think Norwegians are any more bigoted than people in any other country, including America. I do think that some who put down America do so with bigotry, arrogance, and stereotyping. You don't need to agree. Your own words, that Dubla quoted, make the point with or without your agreement. It is obvious that you are more interested in proclaiming yourself the victor, rather than exhibit even an once of understanding. Win at all costs, regardless of how it affects others. How American of you! Or should I say, how Norwegian of you!
Edited by - Magog on 2 July 2002 15:25:16
-
51
Norwegians Harm Whales
by Magog innorway to defy ban, resume whale exports to iceland.
by inger sethov .
oslo (reuters) - norway said friday it would defy an international ban on commercial whaling and resume exports of whale meat to iceland after a 14-year break.
-
-
Magog
Jan,
You just keep on digging you in deeper.
Your lead in is humorous. First bias the situation before you make your comments. Am I doing that? Yes, to make my point.
No, it was not a "personal attack" on the US. After all, the USA is not a person. it was the headline you wrote to this thread that made it a nationalistic one, by singling out Norway. Have you forgotten that already? Your attempt to make it sound like I made this discussion one of nationalism is particularly disingenious.
It was a form of 'Ad Hominem' .. to deflect from the issue surrounding Norway, and start finding fault elsewhere. Again, the concept is to illustrat how many non-Americans must sound to Americans.
You explicitly made direct attacks on Norway to "get back at" what you perceived to be unfair criticism of the US. After the attack was rebuffed, you backtracked into asserting you only did this to teach someone "a lesson." Your satirical comments was followed up by some disgruntled Americans before I responsed. I pointed out the hypocrisy of the US in criticizing other nations for doing what they do themselves.
You are assuming motive. The criticism of American actions in Afghanistan is fair. The stereotypical style of blaming all Americans, and assuming that America must always be guilty and wrong is what troubles me.
More than this, however, I pointed out a number of facts about the topic at hand, whaling, to refute the position of some extremist groups calling themselves environmentalists. If you felt that criticism of US policies were similarily unfair, why did you not do the same? One could be persuaded to believe it is because you do not have the facts on your side, and that this is a knee-jerk response.
Jan, again, you are totally missing the objective of the post. I quoted a Rueters article about Norwegian whaling, and then my comments were absurdly stereotypical of Norwegians as a parody. The issue is not about whaling. It is intended to show how many comments sound to Americans. Placing the shoe on the other foot for a change. Why is this concept, even when repeated to you, so hard for you to grasp?
Again, you are totally illogical. Norway and Japan support a sensible hunting for some whale species. Our position is self-consistent. That of the US administration is not.
Again, if you look at my very first response to everyone's comments, I clearly state the purpose, issue, and concept. It is not about whaling, but about how non-Americans sound.
I also found it very amusing you singled out Norway, considering that the thread you were so peeved off by, at http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=31251&site=3 was started by a Brit and most of the other critics of the American politics of killing hundreds of innocent bystanders were indeed British. Some were Americans. As far as I can see, the only Norwegian participating in that thread was me. So, when you say you posted this thread as a "parody" to show how unreasonable criticisms of the US is, I had to assume it was my criticisms you argued were unfair and built on wrong facts.
Yes, I singled out Norway. So what? I never stated I was peeved off regarding any thread. That is your assumption without facts. Whether it was started by a Brit is irrelevant, and obfuscates the issue of my post, which is another poor argumentation style.
Now, I fail to see where you pointed out what my errors of fact or judgment were in that thread. I did myself, in the first message, state that "this latest disaster was undoubtedly an accident" and thus not an act of terrorism as Logical argued. Alas, nobody followed up on my references to other cases where the Bush administration (more or less democratically elected by the American people) seems to deliberately provoke and piss off the rest of the world, counting on nationalists to develop a "US vs them" siege mentality that would help Bush get reelected.
I did not comment on that thread. I am not interested in that topic. It is irrelevant to my post. Again, more obfuscation coming from you.
A number of bigoted and hateful messages from Americans on that thread, LDH in particular, did provoke me to make statements that I agree will be unfair to the many Americans who do not agree that non-American lives are worthless. But this does not change the fact that US forces are under orders that continues to kill far more civilians than what reasonable rules of engagement would.
I cannot deny that Americans display bigotry and ignorance at times, maybe many times. My point is that those who frequently highlight this American fault fail to see theat they themselves are doing the same thing. Simply put, it is hypocrisy.
If Norway pursues a policy that I see as unethical I do not hesitate to say so (I just don't agree that whaling is unethical). It seems many Americans subscribe to and openly say "my country right or wrong", a position that is highly unethical and extremely dangerous both to the Americans themselves and to the stability in the rest of the world.
I have not read any post where Americans have said such a thing. The statement, "My Country Right or Wrong" is a cliche' that is over used by critics. I find Americans very charming in their ability to be most introspective and self-deprecating. They blame themselves far to much, and wallow in serious guilt. No wonder they have so many problems with depression. Even my comments now are a bit stereotypical, because America is a large, diverse nation with many subcultures and ethnic structures.
Even if Norway pursued some highly unethical practices, I don't see how this somehow justifies killing children at a wedding in Afghanistan.
I never once equated to two situations. You did. You conscience must be bothering you to keep bringing this up and trying to equate the Afghani situation with Norwegian whales. I was only addressing how non-Americans sound to Americans, and found the Norwegian whaling issue a convenient platform to draw my comparison. Why is it so hard for you to stick to the issue of this post, without having to drag in something from an unrelated post?
As I have pointed out above, you singled out Norway, and obviously me. Now, I did not use an "ad hominem" style of argumentation. I used facts and arguments, as I do in this thread.
You immediately used a form of 'ad hominem' by deflecting greater guilt to the USA. Why did you single out the USA? Why not stick to the issue of Norwegian whaling? You obviously did see the concept I was trying to highlight through my use of parody, and you are ignoring it.
You, on the other hand, do use personal attacks as a form of argumentation. So does a number of Americans in this and other threads. So if you posted this to teach anyone a sort of "lesson", both the message and its addressee was wrong.
I am not using personal attack in the issue. I admit for a second time retaliating. I was not trying to teach anyone. I am trying to point out an issue of hypocrisy.
Your problem is that you only assert that these criticisms are unfair. You do nothing to substantiate your position.
The substantiation are your responses and those of others who agree with you. It is not so much whether the criticisms are unfair as you assert, but how they sound to Americans. Hence, my post was to show this in reverse by simply using Norwegians as the vehicle to make the point. Your response shows me that you are more equipped at debating rather than understanding. You and other non-Americans like to say how much Americans do not understand. The whole basis of this demonstrates the inability of many non-Americans to see their own hyprocrisy.
Sure, I totally agree that many criticisms of Americans are unfair. And I have said so many times. Alas, the rabid style of some very vocal American patriots on this board tends to make even your friends ashamed to say anything positive about the USA. When many people are so overly self-rightous, they don't need others to pat them on the back.
The acknowledgement is appreciated, even if late. One of the cultural aspect of Americans I have come to appreciate is their not-so-subtle contrarian style. They sound far more rabid and radical than they really mean. If one takes time to understand their culture, one finds them far more kind, moderate, and generous in their real views. Non-Americans must learn to understand other cultures like the American culture, and appreciate them for what they are. Study them, and accept them as just another variation in the world community. I fear that as long as this bias and bigotry continues against Americans, our world will not really evolve to new levels anytime soon.
-
51
Norwegians Harm Whales
by Magog innorway to defy ban, resume whale exports to iceland.
by inger sethov .
oslo (reuters) - norway said friday it would defy an international ban on commercial whaling and resume exports of whale meat to iceland after a 14-year break.
-
-
Magog
Jan,
I did not respond by personal attacks. You did, and you still do.
Your very first response is a personal attack on the USA. You single out the USA as your attempt to steer from facts and make it as nationalistic issue. Here is what you first said:
Ironically, the US hunts and kills more whales than Norway, but this is done by "traditional" people in Alaska, and then it's no longer wrong. Go figure.
Proportionaly (per capita) this is not true. Japan is the worst of any nation. Why did you not mention Japan? Do you have an ax to grind against America?
I admit I made a generalized attack against ignorance and arrogance against the Americans. I later responded personaly to you. I admit I retaliated.
Obviously you are more comfortable attacking critics as uneducated and unintelligent (which hurts so much coming from a yank) instead of dealing with the actual arguments that I and others posted.
I am attacking the "ad hominem" style of SOME critics, be they educated or not. Your attempt to turn this around to the superiority of your argumentation is a poor tactic. No one questioned your previous arguments. I praised your past performance. The argument was, and is, not about whales. When one looks at my original post, it is obvious I am taking unfair swipes at Norwegians ... and my follow-up explanation demonstrates the intent is to deal with non-American arrogance. That is the issue and argument, to show how non-Americans must sound to Americans.
You and other non-Americans are as guilty of failing to use facts as you allege about others. Even when such critics used facts, just as I did in my opening post, they are often sprinkeled with biased junk against Americans. This is my point Jan, to get you, and other non-Americans, to look in the mirror a little. To realize how unitelligent and biased many arguments sound. That is all.
"Has it occurred to you that is what is giving many Americans a very bad name?"
I am well aware of the reputation Americans have. Has it occured to you that the same thing is giving Norwegians and other nationalities an equally bad name? There are more Americans, God love them, so I suppose it stands to reason that they will get the brunt of more criticism. Ratios, notwithstanding, other nations are equally bad or worse on many fronts. Until we as humans can get our collective act together, we are going to be at each other's throats forever.
If when bringing up a criticism about something that happened where the USA is involved, it would be nice for once to hear the critics deal only with facts, and stop the judgmentalism against an entire nation of 280 million very diverse people.
Do you and other non-Americans not see the point at all? Do you not see the possibility that non-Americans also are biased and often unfairly critical of America, perhaps even hypocritical? Why can you not get back to the issue and deal with the questions? Why, when American are personally attacked, cannot you and others see your way to steer back to the issue and stop the personal attacks on Americans? Why not set the example?
As for being American, I never stated what country I lived in, or my nationality.
Edited by - Magog on 2 July 2002 11:3:28
-
51
Norwegians Harm Whales
by Magog innorway to defy ban, resume whale exports to iceland.
by inger sethov .
oslo (reuters) - norway said friday it would defy an international ban on commercial whaling and resume exports of whale meat to iceland after a 14-year break.
-
-
Magog
Jan,
Yes, by posting arguments and facts instead of hysterical patriotic nonsense. Heck, you should try it one day. Perhaps you will discover that people take you a bit more seriously.
Nothing was hysterical or patriotic about my post. I used a plain fact and illustrated a point with parody. Whether people take me seriously is not at issue. It now seems important to you to attempt to discredit me when you cannot think of a good defense. The point about fair play is a point you seem to be deliberately ignoring, or incapable of inderstanding. Only when I made a point of criticism about Norway do you begin to make your argument personal rather than stick to facts and issues.
While you make many good posts and arguments, you also seem very uncomfortable admitting error, and stepping back to acknowledge a more moderate position. Just an observation.
Edited by - Magog on 2 July 2002 10:16:4
-
51
Norwegians Harm Whales
by Magog innorway to defy ban, resume whale exports to iceland.
by inger sethov .
oslo (reuters) - norway said friday it would defy an international ban on commercial whaling and resume exports of whale meat to iceland after a 14-year break.
-
-
Magog
You missed my edited comments Jan. If the shoe fits, however, then wear it. The point is not that criticism of the Americans is not deserved at times, but the arrogance and self-righteousness with which is it given that makes the point. Likewise, it is interesting to see how non-Americans react when the shoe is on the other foot. Why can't you simply concede it is possible that much of the criticism of the Americans is unjustly and wrongly meted out.