the Perfect Foil lied:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
oups.com...

the Perfect Foil lied:

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
link.net...

the Perfect Foil lied:


Why did you crosspost this
all over the place?

It belongs there.

Why would rec.boats people
care about our arguments
about food, and the growing
of food?

Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
without my help.


Nah, I give up.

You're a quitter. Quitters never proper. Winners
never quit, and quitters never win.


The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.


Wildlife pays too, due to the
overuse

It is not "over" use.

Yes it is. We've outgrown our
petri dish.

It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
scientific one.


Aesthetic? No.

Yes.

of formerly wild areas
like the extensive acreage
used in beef production.

Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.

There's that extremism you're
expecting of me again.

No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.


And do that by tearing down my
home?

You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
longer such. The implication for your residence is
clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
bulldoze it.

Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
additional resources. The owners of those resources
are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
to go, not some ****witted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".


As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
of feeding the world, she makes
a good point.

She makes a wretched, typically ****ty Lesley point.
It's total bull****.

She's right about what she
posted and you know it.

She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
thinks it's a production issue.


I think everyone agrees it's
a distribution problem.

No. No, they don't. People, ****witted Lesley at the
forefront, think it's a resource allocation problem.
They're wrong.

Suppose we didn't grow grain and other feedstuffs for
livestock. Do you seriously think that means we'd be
shipping, gratis, an equivalent amount of food to
"poor, starving people" around the world? You're an
idiot, so you might think so. But you're an idiot, and
you're wrong.


The grain/beans

Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
stupid ****.

to beef ratio is 16:1, and
the potatoes to beef ratio is
160:1. That's huge!

It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
of food produced. There is more than enough food
produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
to them, and paying the producers for it.


Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
looking at resource allocation issues in this way.


I happen to be a great cook,

I doubt that.

Doubt all you want.

My doubts are well grounded.


It's your loss.

Hardly. You could scorch water.


but that aside, are you actually
claiming that one must do all
one can, to extremes, in order
to maximise the time one
spends on good deeds?

No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
WHORE Lesley is claiming.

But I've only been seeing YOU
claiming that people must go
to unreasonable extremes.

No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
resources include your time.


She has never faulted me for
my time use like you do.

*I* am not faulting you for your time. SHE has
implied, whether she realizes it or not, that *any*
time you spend beyond the minimum necessary to put some
calories and protein and fiber in you is a waste.


And cooking for 3 hours is
evil compared to cooking
for 20 minutes?

Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
implying. If she says that resources, rather than

Ah, there's that implying again.

A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.


Huh? Your implication
perception is way off.

My ability to detect logically necessary implications
is unsurpassed.


going into the production of what she considers to be a
"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
time and your money. You may do with it what you like.

She has never implied or said
anything about my cooking
time.

It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.


Let's let her decide whether
she's telling me how to allot
my time.

By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.

And what's this
got to do with boats?

You really can't see it? It's so ****ing obvious, it's
about to kill you. You ****ing idiot.

Let's see, boats are used in
the transporting of some foods.
Are you going to tell me I should
be against that too? Boats are
used in fishing and that's a
segue into food. Am I getting
warmer? Maybe someone
from rec.boats could give me
a hint if Rudy can't/won't.

You are a ****ing idiot.


No,

Yes.

just someone who doesn't
get what the above has to do
with boats.

Because you're a ****ING IDIOT.

The philosophy
group I can understand, as we
discuss morals regarding the
use of food and animals, but
boats? Oh well, trying to figure
out how your mind works is
boggling. You say and do
the weirdest things.

No.

THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
your ****ing worthless life.