Re: Life Duty Death

Joseph Askew (
Wed, 13 Sep 1995 22:33:36 GMT

In article <j/> (mark) writes:

>> Really? They have some problems I will agree. But then the
>> system that made these problems is dead. You claim that is
>> not a great leap forward? Why?

>What does your question have to do with the previous question? I have
>heard that Lake Baikal is nearly collapsed, ecologically speaking. What's
>going to try to bring it back?

Lake Baikal isn't by the way. Not to worry. The relevance is
with the claim that everything is getting worse. To which end
the example of the xUSSR was introduced. One situation where
in every sense for both sides of this argument the situation
is getting better not worse.

>> And now this moronic evil system is gone. Thus the world
>> is a better place. The factories that caused these problems
>> are mostly closed down. Making the world a better place.
>> Just what is your objection to my claim?

>Duh. "Moronic evil"?

Perhaps you don't think that killing 20 million people is evil?

>May I point out Bhopal, India (you *do* remember a few
>years ago, where Union Carbide, a US-based multinational, had a plant
>blow up, and killed, oh, I think it was either 2000 or 5000 people, and
>injured (with the cyanide gas) another 20,000 (and no, I ain't misplacing
>decimal points)?

There is a world of difference between an accident and the
deliberate mass murder of millions of people. If you think
that Bhopal is comparable to Katyn then you are really a sick
little fuck.

>How 'bout Love Canal?

No one died I heard of. Wasn't even much of a problem.

>How about what we're going to
>do with the nuclear waste from processing bombs, that's going to be
>hot for 20,000 years?

We're going to bury it where it will never, even in a worst
case scenario, kill a millionth of the people killed by

>Who's got a moronic evil system?

The USSR. And the Green movement has the people to
do it by the looks of your post. Ecofascism.

>Sorry, but it's depleted so badly that the reproductive and habit
>cycle is close to breaking. They very well may *not* come back, just like
>the salmon in the northwest.

The slightest evidence for this stupid claim?

>Let's try this: what's your current salary (assuming you work)?

Essentially zero.

>I figure that *real* money means figuring out what the current dollar is
>worth compared to when I started working full-time, (pulls out rocking

So you are old fashioned. So what?

>So, what was your father making in the late sixties? Now take whatever
>you're earning, and divide it by six, since the current dollar is worth
>about 16.67% of the 1968 dollar.

And the relevance of this is? Real wages have gone up in
America by 65% since 1969. Deal with the real world. In
most of the Third World they have done far better than that.
In Singapore they have doubled in the last 10.

>Hmmmm? Still feeling well-to-do?


>Say *what*? Do you only believe right-wing media?
>*sigh* I lve folks who believe the media, hook, line and sinker.

This is the same wanker who was telling me to read a paper
not five lines back. Good one.