Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Bob Andrews wrote:My roots lie in the lumpen-proletariat and I spent christmas and the New Year in Bodrum. On a State pension. So I don't consider myself poor. Try the Tressell definition on workers today and they will look at you as if you were barmy.The only time my old dad went overseas was when they sent him to war.Bodrum was heaving with Geordies. A strange people. Their sole interest, apart from drinking, was starting punch-ups with the locals after deliberately misinterpreting something said or done as an insult or a challenge to a fight.Totally upset my holiday.
one area of poverty that relates to your old man is the absence of contraception. If he’d had access to that facility, his life and this forum, would have been spared the blight that is Bob Andrews.Also the only fact that you expect people to believe that you can manage a fortnight in Bodrum on £130 a week shows how full of the brown stuff you are.Pleased, however that the good people of Tyneside managed to upset your holiday, a bit disappointing that you didn’t get your comeuppance, still there’s always next year
Vin wrote:Bijou Drains wrote:Alan I don’t care what you say, my mother tried, my partner has tried. I’m not eating fucking Brussels sproutsBrussel sprouts are OK with beef and Yorkshires and a glass of devil's liquor
if you have to add all of these different ingredients to them (bacon, butter, gravy, whiskey, etc.) to make them taste nice, it’s because they don’t bloody well taste nice! QED
pfbcarlisle wrote:Paddy Shannon – The Vegans are Coming!They are, but don't worry, they're all a bit washed out and low on energy. Most of them have dental problems and if the odd vegan and his droogs are up for a bit of the old ultra violence, the lack of omega 3 can lead to memory loss, so they'll probably forget who they were fighting. In addtion the Vitamin B 12 means there's a good chance they've got pernicious anemia. Shouldn't put up too much of a fight. If you want me I'll be on me oddy knocky down at the Korova Milkbar, supping a couple of pints of Milko Plus and listening to a bit of old Ludwig Van
moderator1 wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:you decide who you want here.Our moderator is very even-handed, Ike.I think every member of the forum has been warned to stick to the topic and desist from personal comments. I know. I have been suspended a fair number of times. Vin, i believe, holds the record. Despite holding political views that i sometimes find offensive and which have the potential consequence of providing support for the nastiest of people, this discussion list abides by its guidelines https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum-rules-and-guidelinesI think how we deal with those who break the rules of the forum, in a little way, reflects our response of how we consider rules inside socialism will operate.
Actually, its not Vin who holds the record, he's had 3 suspensions. In fact its LBird with 5 suspensions.The rule of thumb on the forum is the first breach of the rules draws my attention but I rarely take action. The second breach means I automatically post a reminder that a breach has occurred. Further breaches of any of the rules by the same offender means a 1st warning is posted. After the 3rd and final warning a 30 day cooling off period is actioned. If a breach occurs during this period its an automatic suspension – the length of which depends on the seriousness of the breach and the past record of the offender. For example, LBird got suspended for 60 days on his last breach due to him failing to get the message that the rules are there for a purpose so as to enable and encourage discussion and not further argumentation. I only action indefinite suspensions on spammers and those who make threats of violence.
Surely this post is off topic (breach of Rule 1) and queries a moderation decision (breach of rule 14). Thankfully I’m not taking it upon myself to chastise Mod 1. I would never chastise, that would be a breach of rule 14. In line with rule 15, I may send a PM to the moderator about this, but rest assured, I will not post it on the forum, because that would be a breach of rule 15 and woe is on the face of those who breach rule 15. So sayeth the lord (AKA Mod 1)
moderator1 wrote:Vin wrote:I am about to be suspended by mod despite the new protocol. Most comrades have gone off topic on numerous occasions but have not recieved warning. I feel as if I am being targeted perhaps because of my 'previous'Shouldn't the users that responded to my off topic be warned too?Am I alone in believing this?Is a suspension warranted?in a couple of minutes I have found that Posts #588 586 573 552 555 556 558 560 546 are off topic and received no warning. There are many more. Which is why I started this thread How mod rules can be used"Despite a 3rd Final warning and a PM this user continued to breach the guidelines and rules and is suspended for an indefinite period." 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.
Let's have a look at this in a little more detail"Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not the contributors" – At no point has Vin questioned this or tried to take responsibility for moderation, he has merely pointed out inconsistencies. This is not in breach of the rule."if you believe that a post or a private message violates a rule, report it to a moderator" – Vin has clearly stated in previous posts that he has PM'd the moderator with regard to what he believes are violation of the rules. The rule does not state that discussion of possible breaches should not/cannot be discussed on the message board. Again this is not a breach of the rule."Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violation of the rules" – I have not seen any point in any post where Vin has chastised others for their perceived violations of the rules. He may have criticised, he may have pointed out inconsistencies, he may have questioned modertaion decisions, but he has not "chastised" anyone. He has not breached any rule.So just to be clear, I am neither Vin is not in breach of rule 14what then about rule 1515. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal. Queries about PARTICULAR moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderator by Private Message – Again Vin has made it clear that he has sent such messages to the Moderator. At no point does the rule state that discussion about moderation decisions cannot be discussed on the forum. – No breach of ruleDo not post such messages to the forum. – Again Vin has not posted these messages, he has referred to the messages, but he has not posted the messages. Ther is nothing int he rues that states that messages cannot be referred to.You must continue to abide by the moderators' decision pending the outcome of your appeal – Again at no point has Vin failed to abide by a moderation decision. He has questioned decisions, it's diffiuclt to say how any member could not abide by the ruling, could they insist that they have not been warned, or not been suspended? Not only that as Vin has not appealed against a decision, this part of the rule does not apply.The rules are, in my view, currently being interpreted as stating that questining moderation decisions is a breach of the rules, I believe this to be an incorrect interpretation. Not only that, I believe that such an interpretation is undemocratic and also completely at odds with the historical practices of the SPGB.
alanjjohnstone wrote:First of all this was not a party statement but a round-up of this thread but it seems some of us cannot agree even on that.ALB, i struggled to find the right word to relate to veganism/vegetarianism. Originally i had "recognise the benefits of" but actually felt "acknowledge the value" was more neutral.Again your amendment for a more appropriate word for point 2 is acceptable. I had already mentioned other livestock advantages earlier so didn't repeat that. I think the medical consensus is meat eating is not healthy "in excess" – and excess is where the debate lies and continues to be disputed. As for BD suggestion that we cannot trust scientific opinion due to vested interests, indeed that is true, Ronald Reagan re-classified tomato ketchup as a vegetable to satisfy lobbyists in the introduction of 5 – a – Day. What is healthy and how much of it is healthy seems to be an eternal debate…re alcohol , coffee and what not is constantly featured in the media. But some things are universally condemned as unhealthy – smoking. (My bug-bear is shift-work and how workers are not sufficiently compensated for the harm that does to a person's health.)We do take cognisance of who sponsors and support scientific research. But it is recognised by responsible food authorities that a more grain/vegetable diet is healthier such as the Mediterranean Diet and the Japanese. Both those include animal protein but not to the degree being consumed in the average person's diet. The Paleolithic diet plan of high meat intake has been discredited. And our sugar addiction is being addressed by government action, as was the high salt consumption saturated fats and other aspects of the processed food industry. " I do not agree that we associate ourselves with a steady state, zero growth economy." – I'm not going to go the SS and or pamphlets producing the relevant quotations,BD, I'll leave the fact-checking to yourself, but that statement is the party position.Moral shmoral…It is wrong to kill and inflict pain on living creatures if there is no need, just as it is wrong to kill and injure another person unnecessarily. Any argument that condones needless suffering inflicted upon any sentient life, and evidence of those feeling animal are increasing and expanding with every new research, is simply psychopathic. (Again i will add various caveats, we do exterminate viruses, parasites and some pests and i will also reserve my personal judgement on the worth of vivisection). Since i have some quotes from the SS in front of me, this is what we have said.“All socialists are of course opposed to cruelty to animals but, just like the rest of the population, have differing views as to what constitutes cruelty. Some may go shooting birds and rabbits, some go fishing, some eat meat, some are vegetarians, some perhaps are vegans. There is no line or policy on the matter, because we are an organisation of people who have come together to campaign for socialism and nothing else. We wouldn't go so far as to say nothing can be done to improve the lot of animals within capitalism nor as to denounce the RSPCA and the Cat Protection League as reformist enemies of the working class…." “Socialists are not unduly sentimental about animals, and consider that a human’s first loyalty should be their own species. Nevertheless, the degree to which human society is ‘civilised’ can reasonably be gauged by its treatment of animals and the natural world as well as by its treatment of humans, and socialism, in its abolition of all aspects of the appalling savagery of capitalism, will undoubtedly do its part to abolish all unnecessary suffering by non-human sentient creatures.”“we contend that humans and other animals do not have rights…but this does not stop some socialists responding to the cruelty that the profit system inflicts on the vast majority by becoming vegetarian or vegan." “In a genuinely socialist system of this kind cruelty to animals can be expected to stop as it would have no basis for occurring. The ending of the oppression and exploitation of humans by other humans—and the cruel treatment meted out as a matter of state policy by soldiers, police and prison guards …will make humans generally less tolerant towards cruelty to other animals.” Capitalism is a particularly nasty social system to human beings and also animal-life, whether domesticated or in the wild. Socialist understand that there is a little that can be done until socialism is established regards all the problems and issues that impact upon the quality of life of workers. But as i said this thread is repeating itself and no longer serving any constructive function. This is my last post on this thread.Alan I don’t care what you say, my mother tried, my partner has tried. I’m not eating fucking Brussels sprouts
alanjjohnstone wrote:But with socialism, we speculate that there will be less meat-eating because:1. meat-eating is not an efficient method of food production2. that there is very good evidence that it is not nutritious or healthy, and3. it is reprehensible to impose pain and suffering upon other living beings where there is no need to do so. 4. Livestock rearing is a major contribution to global-warming hot-house gases …………………………. We associate ourselves with the steady-state, zero-growth model of economy for a socialist society and we envisage an anti-consumerism trend to prevail and expect a drop in consumption levelsSorry to disappoint you, but I dont agree with much of the above.1. Meat eating is not a form of food production, it is a method of food consumption. What is counted as efficient in a capitalist society will not be what is considered efficeint in a socialist society. It is impossible to say what the technological and environmental situation will be when/if a socialist society is implemented. There are many pros and cons about meat production. We do not as a Party have a position on this, anymore than we have a party position on what colour the rubbish bins will be in a socialist society.2. There is also lots of good evidence that it is nutritious and healthy. The difficulty is that in a capitalist society evidence is generally biased to which ever industry is sponsoring it.It is intersting to llok at some some of the sponsors of the Produce for Better Health Foundation which was largely responsible for the start of the 5 a day movement in California::Logistics firms: C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.;Caito Foods, Inc.;Capital City Fruit;Coast Produce Company and J&J Distributing. –Specialist producers:Driscoll’s (berries);U.S. Highbush Blueberry Council (blueberries);Ocean Mist (artichokes and fresh vegetables);Giorgio (mushrooms);Columbine Vineyards (grapes);Nature sweet tomatoes;Potandon Produce (potatoes)Paramount Farms (nuts and flavoured nut snacks).General fresh produce firms includeW. Newell & Companies;Eurofresh Farms;Giumarra Companies;General Mills (Green Giant brand);Sun-Maid raisins and dried fruit;Kagome juicesDuda Farm Fresh Foods. –also other: such asBASF (the world’s leading chemical company, and a provider of fungicides, insecticides and herbicides);Glad Products Company (containers, bags and ovenware);Nunhems USA (commercial vegetable seeds);No conflict of interest there then.3. This is a moral judgement. I agree with it, but it is not the Party's postion to moralise.4. Again this is open to question, we grow the crop, feed it to the cow, the cow farts a lot, then we eat the cow, as opposed to we grow the crop, eat the crop, then we fart a lot.Similarly, I do not agree that we associate ourselves with a steady state, zero growth economy. I would say we associate ourselves with an econmic model that is democratic and hopefully has the least harmful impact on our environment. It is perfectly feasible that this could be attained and that economic growth (how that is defined is another question) continues.
robbo203 wrote:Vin wrote:Major McPharter wrote:Will Oswald bring his blackshirts with him up to the north east ?Divint wurry marra. Thail nivver stop wor pie and pee suppa neets. Gannaway wir a a leek up the jacksey, Mare like
I tried "GeordieTranslator" on this but it dinna work. http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp So c'mon guys, tell us . What does "wor pie and pee suppa neets" mean then?
Wor = OurPie and Pee Suppa neets – Pie and Peas Supper nights. A traditional night of entertainment, usually focussed on fund raising or some other charitable cause, where savoury mince pies (usually large version known as plate mincve pies) and mushy peas (Geordie Guacamole) are consumed in large quantities (gravy optional). The evening may also involve a game of bingo or a beetle drive (this is not a cruel insect baiting activity). In times gome by further entertainment could be made by the singing of culturaly significant songs such as "wor Geordies Lost 'is Liggy" "Eeh Wor Nanny's a Mazer" "Keep ya feet Still Geordie Hinny" "The Blaydon Races" and south of the Tyne "The Lambton Worm". https://www.newcastlegateshead.com/blog/read/2015/03/where-to-get-the-best-pies-in-newcastle-britishpieweek-b89
Vin wrote:Major McPharter wrote:Will Oswald bring his blackshirts with him up to the north east ?Divint wurry marra. Thail nivver stop wor pie and pee suppa neets. Gannaway wir a a leek up the jacksey, Mare like
the last time a fascist caalled Oswald torned up in th’ Toon, me fatha an is Marras waddn’t let’m Gan t’th hoppins. He awnly wanted to gan on a shuggy, https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thefreelibrary.com/amp/Fighting+fascists+on+Tyneside%253B+When+the+leader+of+the+British+Union…-a0382399245
alanjjohnstone wrote:Nearly $70 billion on our cats, dogs, and other companion animals, and a 2015 Gallup poll found that one-third of all Americans believe animals should have the same basic rights as people. Despite our love for animals, over 9 billion land animals per year are slaughtered for food in the U.S. aloneSo if we turn agricultural production over to purely agrarian farming, what do we do with the 9 billion animals that are ready for slaughter, turn them loose? I think a lot of people who don't have much of a connection with the countryside belive it's all a bit David Attenborough out there (the lizard always beats the snake). How do you imagine wild animals meet their deaths, Do you have visions of elderly Mr badger, surrounded by famiy and friends, slowly passing away in his bed as the Badger priest reads him the badger last rites. In reality most wild animlas meet deaths that are at least as unpleasant as the ones that die in slaughterhouses, often at an earlier age.Again the slaughterhouses of a Socialist Society would not be driven by cutting corners and making as much profit for the owners. I for one would be ok with working in a well run, humane slaughter house, knowing it is the best interests of my fellow workers.There is also a lot of bollocks talked about local food production and the environmental benefits of it. A recent programme on Radie 4 pointed out that it was far more environmentally friendly to undertake large scale production of tomatoes in a climate like Spain and then transport to the UK, that it was to use energy producing tomatoes in the UK. The amount of greenhouse gasses produced in transporting, especially by sea, is far less that heating greenhouses in the UK.
TheMightyYoghourt wrote:The point, surely, is that 'farming' under capitalism – for which read 'factory farming as an efficient means of maximising profits' is at once fucking up the planet and producing meat that is scarcely worth eating. Most mass-produced supermarket meat is flavourless and almost entirely lacking in nutritional value. The same is true, incidentally, of mass-produced fruit and vegetables. Capitalism has produced an entire generation of people who simply don't have a clue what an apple or a tomato taste like, leave alone the explosive umami experience of a well-reared cow. FFS! Lots of people don't even know where their food comes from. I think that it's mistaken to believe that there is any quantitative or qualitative difference between cow factory farming, sheep factory farming, chicken factory farming or fish factory farming. It's all harmful, both to people and the environment and the only slightly-sentient creatures that it fucks about with. (If livestock were so clever it'd have a socialist party!) From my point of view, socialism won't be socialism if it treats animals in the way that capitalism does. So forget about your chicken nuggets and your beefburgers. If they still exist after the revolution – except as a frozen exhibit in the museum of idiocy and total divorce from the concept of a food chain – it won't have been a revolution at all. Human liberation equals animal liberation, it seems to me. And I don't even like animals. I like animals about as much as I like humans. Which is to say, scarcely at all. I'm not a vegetarian. My attitude to food is simple. If you speak to it and it can't answer then it's on the menu. And that includes tabloid readers and the watchers of the X-Factor. But you really shouldn't be eating that stuff unless you know where it came from.Fuck me, someone who is as misanthropic as myself, Right on brother/sister. The only slight points of disagreement, beefburgers can be delicious, if made with properly produced beef, and you seem to rule out eating parrots.
ALB wrote:Be careful not to provoke the Hindu nationalists, Bijou. They kill people for eating meat.Round my way they’d kill whole families for a Greggsy’s pastie.
John Oswald wrote:But we who wish to stop you will be free to do so. Unless you choose to stop us, dictatorially. Even that won't work. And, exactly, you won't have what today's capitalists have: a police force to stop us stopping you!you’re welcome to try, Bonny lad!
Vin wrote:Alan – you are talking about production for profit, which I oppose whereas I am talking about freedom to eat a sausage roll. Don't conflate the two.We have a completely different views of post capitalism. Socialism will increase my freedom otherwise I wouldn't want it. So don't tell me what I can eat and what I can'tDid somebody mention sausage rolls?
LBird wrote:For those Democratic Communists with any real political interest in these issues, about "Workers' Power" and about why 'materialists' will always ban Marxists (as indeed did the SPGB), please read this ICC thread regarding 'Do stones talk to us?'.http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/baboon/14363/do-stones-talk-usYou'll notice that, as usual, I quote from Marx himself.Marx warns that 'materialists' will divide society into two, with the smaller part (the 'materialists') always dominating the larger part (the proletariat).That's why 'materialists' will not have workers deciding for themselves about 'matter'. The 'stones' thread explores this further.Oh yeah, Merry Christmas, and have a 'Materialist New Year'.
I can't say I missed you all that much, my feathered friend, but I'm glad to see you haven't fallen off your perch. I hope you have a the New Year you voted for, all the best.
