That was 3 days ago. I was warned. I said I wont use insults anymore. I dont think I insulted anyone in the past 2 days. So it is a great progress. I dont know, what more do you want?
They would be maybe valid if I actually decide to read them. I probably wont. I have better way to use my time than reading horrible hateful degrading arguments.
"I still will argue that pedophilia, the act of sexual relations between adults and minors is still harmful, wrong and everything else."
You can argue all day. I wont take your arguments as valid. I wont even read them.
Eating meat is gross. When I was a kid, I was forced to eat meat despite the fact I didnt like it and didnt want it. They were constantly telling me how I wont grow unless I eat meat. I believed it and forced myself to eat it and ended up developing a horrible habit to eat meat every day. That lasted until I was about 25 years old. The idea that I contributed so much to the animal torture finally hit me. Also the idea that I didnt like meat in the first place was something which motivated me to try and become a vegetarian. I know all the meat I consumed for over 20 years probably had terrible effects on my health, and that I cannot undo the damage I have done to myself and the animals. I can only act to prevent further damage. I am also considering right now to stop with consumption of milk as well. That is the only animal product which I consume, and I only consume it because apparently it is so good with coffee. Also, it is present in the chocolate. I will try and see whether I can function without milk. After all, the milk of a cow doesnt belong to me. Its not made for me to consume it. So maybe I will live as full vegan for the rest of my life.
I have every right to insult your pig allah. You may say that allah is a nice pig, but I dont believe it. Being a child of muslim parents, I know how horrible muslims are by direct experience.
No, he provided a link to the site that has 20 different contradicting informations.
From his site:
"According to the Food and Agricultural Organization, the minimum amount of land needed for self-sustainable food in North America or Western Europe is 17 acres per person. "
"An infographic by 1BOG.org breaks it down to about 2 acres of land for a family of four. This includes approximately 12,000 sq. feet for wheat, 65 for eggs, 2640 for corn, 100 for dairy, 207 for meat, and 77,000 square feet for vegetables."
"Proponents of aquaponics say that 90% of our dietary needs can be grown in 50 square feet."
"Permaculture advocates say that ¼ acre per person is adequate when permaculture is combined with poultry, fruit trees, and possibly aquaponics."
"Clive Blazey in his book The Australian Vegetable Garden (Amazon Link) claims that 42 square meters of space is enough to support four people."
"John Seymour in his book The New Complete Guide to Self-Sufficiency (Amazon Link) says that 5 acres is enough to be food sufficient in high-rainfall areas of the UK."
And then the site cocludes that if you are a vegan, you need at least 5 acres of land for yourself...
On 5 acres of land, every year you can produce 50 tonnes of food if you are a beginner. So basically, unless everyone in america eats 100 kg of food every day, this is not a valid source.
I mean, just googling the sites that make claim without providing evidence is the same as if he himself made that baseless claim.
I simply asked for calculations, the source of the claim. His sources are just claims unsupported by calculations.
"the minimum amount of land needed for self-sustainable food in North America or Western Europe is 17 acres per person."
Can I get the link as I cant seem to find the idiotic site that claimed something like this.
1 acre of land produces, in bad conditions, 10 tonnes of food per year. Average person eats 1 ton of food per year at best.
You got about 2 hours to post an argument or you forfeit. I dont mean to be annoying, if you want to forfeit i dont care. This is just in case you forgot about debate.
Trade can and should happen in Socialism too. But basically, my understanding is: one individual should produce his own food. This greatly increases the standard of living, as not only he has the incentive to produce quantity, but also quality as he is producing for himself.
People dont always do whats best for them. And sometimes they cant, as they dont own the means of production.
If I own no land, but only a small appartment, its hard for me to produce food for myself, so I have to sell my labour to the capitalist and work extra time to get paid to buy food.
If I have a land, I just need to buy some seeds, basic tools, maybe tree plants, and I can produce food for myself. It wont even take much of my time, and I will have food for which I know is healthy as I produced it. Then after 20 minutes of daily work necesarry to produce food which saves me at least 100$ every month, if I live in a commune I can go to factory owned by the workers and work there earning extra money.
Compared to that, someone who doesnt own means of production has to pay:
1) food - at least 100$ every month. This is assuming he is a vegan and only buys high caloric food to save money.
2) pay with his labour to the rich. This is calculated by amount of products produced for the rich
Even if rich only exploit me for 100$ a month, and the lack of land another 100$ thats total of 200$ every month. Which is a lot and I dont want to pay it.
So, you asked which Korea? DPRK obviously. They may not have the best economy, but there is something about their leader and their country that warms my heart.
Yes, I do support Communism, Socialism whatever you call it, but in a way that I have described in one of my debates. Its Socialism managed by the workers where workers produce for themselves only and not for the rich.
Actually, I do get poorer.
If I get paid, its not the same value as in the case where I just produce cars for myself.
Working takes time, and if all workers spend half of their time producing for the rich, its obvious they will only use other half of their time to produce for themselves.
Even if they get paid, they will still be able to buy only half of what they produced.
If I produce 10 expensive cars for the rich, even if I get paid for my work the fact remains I would be richer if I instead produced 100 cheaper cars for the people. And people would get richer too, as ordinary people would have more cars.
More labour force would be free to produce other things for the ordinary people, hence I would have more.
To make it once again clear:
There are 3 people.
One of them is rich
The other two are workers
If two workers produce 1 expensive car for the rich and two cheap cars for themselves, they are being exploited even if they get paid, as they only get paid enough to buy 2 cheap cars they themselves produced.
If there was no rich, the two workers would have more time to produce for themselves and would have more than 2 cheap cars.
Economy has to be observed in general treating the rich as group 1, workers as group 2.
Once you get that, you understand that workers spend part of their time working for the rich and producing wealth for them, leaving less time for workers to produce for themselves. No amount of money paid to the workers changes that, as there is a limited number of products available for them.
Economy of society is limited. If the workers have to produce for the rich, they will have less being produced for themselves.
Cars would be even cheaper if we didnt waste labour to produce expensive cars for the rich.
Read my previous comment.
Owner doesnt create the job.
Materials used in production are produced by other workers, not owner.
Factories arent made by the rich, but by the workers.
If you buy a factory, that doesnt mean you created it. If you pay for the construction of the factory, the workers will construct it, not you.
Money in capitalism is basically the control tool. Its like saying that Pharaon constructed the pyramids, when he was just in position to control and order their construction.
Just because you order someone to do something, doesnt mean you did it.
I will give you example of two mini societies.
Society A consists of 3 people.
1 of them is rich
Other 2 are workers
Workers produce 2 chocolate bars each.
But they each have to give 1 bar to the rich, leaving each of them with just 1 bar of chocolate.
Society B consists of 3 people.
All 3 people are self governing workers.
Each produces 2 bars of chocolate.
Each has 2 bars of chocolate for himself.
Hence, in society without the rich, worker gets more wealth for himself.
Society A is the model of capitalist society.
Management done by the rich is actually rather poor management of the society. But even if it was good, they get paid 1000x more than a single worker.
Workers can manage themselves. They just need a society in which something like that is possible.
Workers have to work not only to sustain themselves, but also have to do extra work to sustain the rich and build for them their fancy houses and other expensive things. Hence, the existing of the rich is the cause that makes others poorer.
Capitalism is basically just an advanced feudalism.
If the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Of course fixing capitalism and making it fair is impossible. Its like saying you can make feudalism fair. You cant. Its not possible for an exploitation to be fair.
I dont know exactly how to name this Socialism. I can find some similar examples of it in worker coops around the world, but it doesnt seem to have some special name.
It is very similar to Kim Jong Ils Juche system of self reliance in food production in its general principle. However, instead of applying it to a country as a whole and dividing a country on those who produce food and those who dont, I applied it to every individual so that every individual produces food for himself and as such achieving self reliance in food production.
It is based upon some principles of Juche. But the organization itself is based upon something like union of the workers coops in combination with equal distribution of the land to ensure food production. Basically, instead of dividing society on those who produce food and those who dont, in this Socialism everyone owns a piece of land and produces food for himself.
This saves resources, gives the incentive to produce quality and quantity, as the more you produce the more you will have.
I need to read that code. I have many responses saved in the notes on my phone. Hence, I have plenty of materials to post, and I will simply exclude the ones that violate the code. There should be still plenty left after that.
Guess that was all from you. Trying with more effort next time could do you a significant beneficial improvement as right now you seem to be demonstrating cheerleader type of behavior which is cute if you want to be a muslim cheerleader girl not being sure where that would get you. Aiming higher is much better. Always placing goals according to priority makes your thinking more efficient like placing my goal to simply defend myself from muslim word has made me efficient in that. Being thankful for having recieved it from the creator I know my life without the proper word of the creator would be nothing but painful subjugation.
Being confused by my comment means you should read it again to try to understand it as you dont seem to be fit for such an achievement shown by your repetition of the presentation of aims already explained previously unless its just your way of the word that has nothing to do with me. Successfully defending myself from muslim invasion is the cause for me to celebrate as we live under difficult circumstances of the islamic radicalization. Challenging me to a debate again with exactly the same topic as you just did is just boring as you didnt seem to thrive in this one either. Declining your debate because of repetition is what I have done. If you seek another debate with me, challenge me to a debate about pedophilia as I feel willing to debate that next. Boring debates about islam created by you have reached their limit for today.
The gain of votes which you seek is not something that I desire to prevent. Having all the votes in the world wouldnt make you more or less worthy in my eyes. Explanations on how a debate works would only interest me if I was interested in "winning debates" like you. Explaining to me for a million times how a debate works maybe serves some of your deranged goals, but certainly cannot make me follow your rules of it. Defending my mentality is the purpose of me being here along with spreading my word. Explaining this for the purpose of making my goals clear as it seems that you were confused by that.
Spreading of the filthy islamic way of life thinking your ideas can penetrate the strong defensive layers of my mentality is what proves you are incapable to understand how your words being the disease to the mentality must be countered with my defensive words. Assuming I have come here to debate you is also your mistake, as me being here is to spread my words given to me by the creator.
Losing is not what I feel when reading what I have written, but pride as I have defended my mind from the islamic ideas having realised my goal which is unable for you to understand.
This is just wrong reasoning. Saying that child sexual abuse is harmful because it causes physical pain is incorrect as there are many sexual activities such as rubbing and oral sex which dont include painful penetration and hence not causing pain.
Well, if you want for me to leave you alone in your debates, you should have said so. I will leave this comment section now. We will still meet in that debate that you challenged me to .
This is why you shouldnt let terrorists(muslims) in your country. First they want to constantly debate you and after they lose every debate, they want to chop off your head.
Why are you so up about punishing rapists? The punishment for rape should be 1 year in prison and thats it. Now if someone found a little 4 year old girl and took her home to just use her for pleasure, he should be punished with 2 months in prison since it wasnt rape.
I didnt really want to do this, but it seems that you deserved it. You see, one day when I was alone the creator gave me the words. They were powerful words that could be combined to make millions of powerful sentences to defeat my enemies. I have written them all into the notebook but I havent used them so far. Since you were so arrogant towards me and insulted my way of life, I will use full power of the words I was given to defeat you completely.
That was 3 days ago. I was warned. I said I wont use insults anymore. I dont think I insulted anyone in the past 2 days. So it is a great progress. I dont know, what more do you want?
Well, I did say I wont use insults anymore. I kept the word. So what more do you want?
I was forced into treatment. Fun days, really. Especially that urinary catheter experience.
Go ahead. Post your argument so that I can explain to you.
Okay, you convinced me. I will accept it. But dont expect any arguments from my side.
Not really.
I have no tolerance for perversive harmful unwanted words.
I wont reply to your weak tiny insignificant arguments. Even if I accepted this debate, I wouldnt bother to read your arguments at all.
They would be maybe valid if I actually decide to read them. I probably wont. I have better way to use my time than reading horrible hateful degrading arguments.
"I still will argue that pedophilia, the act of sexual relations between adults and minors is still harmful, wrong and everything else."
You can argue all day. I wont take your arguments as valid. I wont even read them.
Eating meat is gross. When I was a kid, I was forced to eat meat despite the fact I didnt like it and didnt want it. They were constantly telling me how I wont grow unless I eat meat. I believed it and forced myself to eat it and ended up developing a horrible habit to eat meat every day. That lasted until I was about 25 years old. The idea that I contributed so much to the animal torture finally hit me. Also the idea that I didnt like meat in the first place was something which motivated me to try and become a vegetarian. I know all the meat I consumed for over 20 years probably had terrible effects on my health, and that I cannot undo the damage I have done to myself and the animals. I can only act to prevent further damage. I am also considering right now to stop with consumption of milk as well. That is the only animal product which I consume, and I only consume it because apparently it is so good with coffee. Also, it is present in the chocolate. I will try and see whether I can function without milk. After all, the milk of a cow doesnt belong to me. Its not made for me to consume it. So maybe I will live as full vegan for the rest of my life.
No. But if you forfeit, I dont care.
After this one is over, yes.
You should really stop your violent hate by doing something more useful instead.
Dont worry. This will be excellent.
I have every right to insult your pig allah. You may say that allah is a nice pig, but I dont believe it. Being a child of muslim parents, I know how horrible muslims are by direct experience.
You should see my other debates about islam. They are not any different than this one.
I published an argument with an actual calculations. Hes gonna have to try much harder now to complete this debate.
Its like watching a bunch of 4 year olds trying to figure out advanced math.
No, he provided a link to the site that has 20 different contradicting informations.
From his site:
"According to the Food and Agricultural Organization, the minimum amount of land needed for self-sustainable food in North America or Western Europe is 17 acres per person. "
"An infographic by 1BOG.org breaks it down to about 2 acres of land for a family of four. This includes approximately 12,000 sq. feet for wheat, 65 for eggs, 2640 for corn, 100 for dairy, 207 for meat, and 77,000 square feet for vegetables."
"Proponents of aquaponics say that 90% of our dietary needs can be grown in 50 square feet."
"Permaculture advocates say that ¼ acre per person is adequate when permaculture is combined with poultry, fruit trees, and possibly aquaponics."
"Clive Blazey in his book The Australian Vegetable Garden (Amazon Link) claims that 42 square meters of space is enough to support four people."
"John Seymour in his book The New Complete Guide to Self-Sufficiency (Amazon Link) says that 5 acres is enough to be food sufficient in high-rainfall areas of the UK."
And then the site cocludes that if you are a vegan, you need at least 5 acres of land for yourself...
On 5 acres of land, every year you can produce 50 tonnes of food if you are a beginner. So basically, unless everyone in america eats 100 kg of food every day, this is not a valid source.
I mean, just googling the sites that make claim without providing evidence is the same as if he himself made that baseless claim.
I simply asked for calculations, the source of the claim. His sources are just claims unsupported by calculations.
"the minimum amount of land needed for self-sustainable food in North America or Western Europe is 17 acres per person."
Can I get the link as I cant seem to find the idiotic site that claimed something like this.
1 acre of land produces, in bad conditions, 10 tonnes of food per year. Average person eats 1 ton of food per year at best.
You got about 2 hours to post an argument or you forfeit. I dont mean to be annoying, if you want to forfeit i dont care. This is just in case you forgot about debate.
I am pretty sure administrators or mods have a way of checking that.
Trade can and should happen in Socialism too. But basically, my understanding is: one individual should produce his own food. This greatly increases the standard of living, as not only he has the incentive to produce quantity, but also quality as he is producing for himself.
People dont always do whats best for them. And sometimes they cant, as they dont own the means of production.
If I own no land, but only a small appartment, its hard for me to produce food for myself, so I have to sell my labour to the capitalist and work extra time to get paid to buy food.
If I have a land, I just need to buy some seeds, basic tools, maybe tree plants, and I can produce food for myself. It wont even take much of my time, and I will have food for which I know is healthy as I produced it. Then after 20 minutes of daily work necesarry to produce food which saves me at least 100$ every month, if I live in a commune I can go to factory owned by the workers and work there earning extra money.
Compared to that, someone who doesnt own means of production has to pay:
1) food - at least 100$ every month. This is assuming he is a vegan and only buys high caloric food to save money.
2) pay with his labour to the rich. This is calculated by amount of products produced for the rich
Even if rich only exploit me for 100$ a month, and the lack of land another 100$ thats total of 200$ every month. Which is a lot and I dont want to pay it.
So, you asked which Korea? DPRK obviously. They may not have the best economy, but there is something about their leader and their country that warms my heart.
Yes, I do support Communism, Socialism whatever you call it, but in a way that I have described in one of my debates. Its Socialism managed by the workers where workers produce for themselves only and not for the rich.
Actually, I do get poorer.
If I get paid, its not the same value as in the case where I just produce cars for myself.
Working takes time, and if all workers spend half of their time producing for the rich, its obvious they will only use other half of their time to produce for themselves.
Even if they get paid, they will still be able to buy only half of what they produced.
If I produce 10 expensive cars for the rich, even if I get paid for my work the fact remains I would be richer if I instead produced 100 cheaper cars for the people. And people would get richer too, as ordinary people would have more cars.
More labour force would be free to produce other things for the ordinary people, hence I would have more.
To make it once again clear:
There are 3 people.
One of them is rich
The other two are workers
If two workers produce 1 expensive car for the rich and two cheap cars for themselves, they are being exploited even if they get paid, as they only get paid enough to buy 2 cheap cars they themselves produced.
If there was no rich, the two workers would have more time to produce for themselves and would have more than 2 cheap cars.
Economy has to be observed in general treating the rich as group 1, workers as group 2.
Once you get that, you understand that workers spend part of their time working for the rich and producing wealth for them, leaving less time for workers to produce for themselves. No amount of money paid to the workers changes that, as there is a limited number of products available for them.
To make it simple, if I have to produce 10 cars for the rich its obvious I have less time to produce for my own needs, hence I get poorer.
Economy of society is limited. If the workers have to produce for the rich, they will have less being produced for themselves.
Cars would be even cheaper if we didnt waste labour to produce expensive cars for the rich.
Read my previous comment.
Owner doesnt create the job.
Materials used in production are produced by other workers, not owner.
Factories arent made by the rich, but by the workers.
If you buy a factory, that doesnt mean you created it. If you pay for the construction of the factory, the workers will construct it, not you.
Money in capitalism is basically the control tool. Its like saying that Pharaon constructed the pyramids, when he was just in position to control and order their construction.
Just because you order someone to do something, doesnt mean you did it.
I will give you example of two mini societies.
Society A consists of 3 people.
1 of them is rich
Other 2 are workers
Workers produce 2 chocolate bars each.
But they each have to give 1 bar to the rich, leaving each of them with just 1 bar of chocolate.
Society B consists of 3 people.
All 3 people are self governing workers.
Each produces 2 bars of chocolate.
Each has 2 bars of chocolate for himself.
Hence, in society without the rich, worker gets more wealth for himself.
Society A is the model of capitalist society.
Management done by the rich is actually rather poor management of the society. But even if it was good, they get paid 1000x more than a single worker.
Workers can manage themselves. They just need a society in which something like that is possible.
Workers have to work not only to sustain themselves, but also have to do extra work to sustain the rich and build for them their fancy houses and other expensive things. Hence, the existing of the rich is the cause that makes others poorer.
Capitalism is basically just an advanced feudalism.
If the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Of course fixing capitalism and making it fair is impossible. Its like saying you can make feudalism fair. You cant. Its not possible for an exploitation to be fair.
I dont know exactly how to name this Socialism. I can find some similar examples of it in worker coops around the world, but it doesnt seem to have some special name.
It is very similar to Kim Jong Ils Juche system of self reliance in food production in its general principle. However, instead of applying it to a country as a whole and dividing a country on those who produce food and those who dont, I applied it to every individual so that every individual produces food for himself and as such achieving self reliance in food production.
It is based upon some principles of Juche. But the organization itself is based upon something like union of the workers coops in combination with equal distribution of the land to ensure food production. Basically, instead of dividing society on those who produce food and those who dont, in this Socialism everyone owns a piece of land and produces food for himself.
This saves resources, gives the incentive to produce quality and quantity, as the more you produce the more you will have.
I need to read that code. I have many responses saved in the notes on my phone. Hence, I have plenty of materials to post, and I will simply exclude the ones that violate the code. There should be still plenty left after that.
Guess that was all from you. Trying with more effort next time could do you a significant beneficial improvement as right now you seem to be demonstrating cheerleader type of behavior which is cute if you want to be a muslim cheerleader girl not being sure where that would get you. Aiming higher is much better. Always placing goals according to priority makes your thinking more efficient like placing my goal to simply defend myself from muslim word has made me efficient in that. Being thankful for having recieved it from the creator I know my life without the proper word of the creator would be nothing but painful subjugation.
Ok that was a bit funny. Anything else?
If you want for me not to talk to you, you can say so.
What? You only debate about islam?
Being confused by my comment means you should read it again to try to understand it as you dont seem to be fit for such an achievement shown by your repetition of the presentation of aims already explained previously unless its just your way of the word that has nothing to do with me. Successfully defending myself from muslim invasion is the cause for me to celebrate as we live under difficult circumstances of the islamic radicalization. Challenging me to a debate again with exactly the same topic as you just did is just boring as you didnt seem to thrive in this one either. Declining your debate because of repetition is what I have done. If you seek another debate with me, challenge me to a debate about pedophilia as I feel willing to debate that next. Boring debates about islam created by you have reached their limit for today.
The gain of votes which you seek is not something that I desire to prevent. Having all the votes in the world wouldnt make you more or less worthy in my eyes. Explanations on how a debate works would only interest me if I was interested in "winning debates" like you. Explaining to me for a million times how a debate works maybe serves some of your deranged goals, but certainly cannot make me follow your rules of it. Defending my mentality is the purpose of me being here along with spreading my word. Explaining this for the purpose of making my goals clear as it seems that you were confused by that.
Spreading of the filthy islamic way of life thinking your ideas can penetrate the strong defensive layers of my mentality is what proves you are incapable to understand how your words being the disease to the mentality must be countered with my defensive words. Assuming I have come here to debate you is also your mistake, as me being here is to spread my words given to me by the creator.
Losing is not what I feel when reading what I have written, but pride as I have defended my mind from the islamic ideas having realised my goal which is unable for you to understand.
I am glad I have said what I did. Needing to be clear, I did exactly what I should have done to defend myself against islam.
This is just wrong reasoning. Saying that child sexual abuse is harmful because it causes physical pain is incorrect as there are many sexual activities such as rubbing and oral sex which dont include painful penetration and hence not causing pain.
Well, if you want for me to leave you alone in your debates, you should have said so. I will leave this comment section now. We will still meet in that debate that you challenged me to .
This is why you shouldnt let terrorists(muslims) in your country. First they want to constantly debate you and after they lose every debate, they want to chop off your head.
Why are you so up about punishing rapists? The punishment for rape should be 1 year in prison and thats it. Now if someone found a little 4 year old girl and took her home to just use her for pleasure, he should be punished with 2 months in prison since it wasnt rape.
I didnt really want to do this, but it seems that you deserved it. You see, one day when I was alone the creator gave me the words. They were powerful words that could be combined to make millions of powerful sentences to defeat my enemies. I have written them all into the notebook but I havent used them so far. Since you were so arrogant towards me and insulted my way of life, I will use full power of the words I was given to defeat you completely.
Oh okay then I will just have to destroy you tomorrow.