i hate manual labour

[Shai Gar]

i just did a lot of pruning and now i am shaking all over, i have lost a lot of energy, damnit i need a hot shower and a book to read, but i have to go sit my fucking learner driver test. /me wants to sleep

[Edmond Zedo]

Have a Coke, and a smile.

[QrioCT]

pruning? my backyard trees are growing afros.

[Shai Gar]

i had a coke, 2 of them, and 3 ginger ales, and a half kilo of cheerios. still dont like manual labour

[jimkopelli]

I'm wondering if that was before, during, or after the permit test... or strung out, more likely, but I still get this image of someone snarfing a bag of cheerios while swerving down the road driving the instructor out of their mind.

Please tell me you didn't put the cheerios in the aforementioned beverages.

[Shai Gar]

no, i did not. although that scenario made me laugh, i had a gingerale for breakfast with a fruit mince pie, and then i started pruning, got a coke while working, had another ginger ale, then when i left to check out tannum state high school so i could repeat year 12 i had another ginger ale, i then went into gladstone to do the written test and failed, again, and then bought myself cheerios to cheer me up. then i went to the dump with dad and we bought cokes to take with us

[booyalab]

I think I prefer certain manual labor to a few other 'S' jobs. It can get the adrenaline pumping and it seems to make the time go faster than more detail-oriented (edit: except typing, i think that would be a really easy S job)or people-oriented work. Plus there is a certain nice sense of accomplishment in finishing something that had to be done, and I swear I'm not even a J.

[Edmond Zedo]

I think I prefer certain manual labor to a few other 'S' jobs. It can get the adrenaline pumping and it seems to make the time go faster than more detail-oriented (edit: except typing, i think that would be a really easy S job)or people-oriented work. Plus there is a certain nice sense of accomplishment in finishing something that had to be done, and I swear I'm not even a J.
Fuckin' A, Sweetheart. I declined an office job last month, and told the Co. Superintendent "It's more of an SJ job."

[Shai Gar]

so does he know much mbti? and hell i would love an office job, ofc i would love any job but an office job means air conditioning and no heavy lifting

[Edmond Zedo]

It would have been tedious crap which catered not-at-all to any sort of individuality or creativity. He said he'd done a little with MBTI testing, but he didn't really KNOW anything about it.

[Shai Gar]

oh tedium..... would there have been a connection to the internet, high powered computer, ability to play morrowind while his back was turned?

[DevNull]

Hi Shai, Hi Edmond.

Shai, that quote of mine in your sig made me laugh. I like that. Only an INTP could appreciate the INTPness so much. You annoy the hell out of me but you are alright. You are off my troll list. In ten years you will not be so annoying. I have only seen one case where an INTP actually gained energy and immaturity. It takes a while to understand you. You are not on any drugs, are you?

On another note, after reading a couple of hundred posts I am amazed at how little I have to actually type with Edmond Z around.... well except for the excessive swear words. It is like having a free-roaming brain. That is so cool.

[Edmond Zedo]

Thanks, man. They either love me or hate me, or think I'm OK.

[Shai Gar]

i am not on any drugs, except cold fizzy drinks. and i know, edmond seems to pick up a lot of shit almost instantly, he is easy to love. and i may be off your troll list but damn i hate your stance on the illegal invasion of iraq and other illegal american international interventions both culturally and militarily, i myself have family in the army and my father is an army captain, nearly every australian soldier i know hates the invasion.

that quote in my sig of you just made me laugh, i thought it was decently original and humourous so i threw it in, now i dont know the context. :(

[DevNull]

i am not on any drugs, except cold fizzy drinks.

Well, that explains the energy.......

I am okay with my stance, and ok with your stance, however your use of the word "illegal" bugs me for instance. Seeing as how this is your thread, I don't mind hashing it out here so if you have a spare moment and the inclination, let's do it.

I tend to base my judgements on moral power. My morals may not fit your morals and that is fine. I do think we both know what is legal and illegal though. I cannot see why the invasion of Iraq is illegal. Follow me. The insanity of the Middle-Eastern leaders is proven everyday. If one of these leaders gets a nuke then things get hairy. Someone has to stop the possibility. Us Americans, and white people in general, are great exploiters and manipulators. Europeans swiped America from natives who hadn't bothered to invent a wheel for themselves. It is in our blood. So... now there is a bunch of oil in a land where everyone is ruled by religion. Scary though to all of us. Oil is power. Oil can buy nukes. Someone has to do something. The Bush administration crosses the T's and dots the I's and invades legally.

Of course if you cannot point out an illegality then I am all ears.

[Shai Gar]

international law.

america violated it for the umpteenth time with this invasion.

hence illegal.




if you dont want to obey international law, then apart from my goal of mass annihilation of every corporation from the CEO to management 15 levels down, all members of the republican and democrat parties, all US defence force officers including national guard, every media CEO, and managment and journalist, all members of CIA, DHS, NSA, FBI, ATF, DEO, (all national law inforcement agencies), all members of the ivy league secret societies (skull n crossbones, snake and book, etcetera) and mime artists, so that society can finally function without the world bully, and america will still have enough of an army to defend itself against invasion. then i have no problem with your nation, or any nation infact not obeying international law, but dont get pissy just because someone calls you out on it.

[DevNull]

international law.

Wrong answer.

I just went over this in another forum. I will put you through the same wringer....

What international law? Exactly.

(I won that argument BTW)

[Shai Gar]

So... now there is a bunch of oil in a land where everyone is ruled by religion. Scary though to all of us. Oil is power. Oil can buy nukes. Someone has to do something. america is allied with the worlds worst islamic theocracy, saudi arabia beheads people all the time. they have oil, they therefore have the money, they invested it in america, they have nukes.


The Bush administration crosses the T's and dots the I's and invades legally. no it doesnt



Of course if you can point out an illegality then I am all ears.okay i will only mention the one for now, if you can disprove it usling logic and common sense without me disproving your disprovisation then i shall add more

UN Charter
Chapter one
Article 3
3 All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered

4 All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

and also
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution empowers Congress, not the president, to debate and decide to declare war on another country. The War Powers Resolution provides that the “constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions or its armed forces.”

Congress has not declared war on Iraq, no statute authorizes an invasion and Iraq has not attacked the United States, its territories, possessions or armed forces.

A preemptive invasion of Iraq would also violate the United Nations Charter, which is a treaty and part of the supreme law of the United States under Article 6, clause 2 of the Constitution. It requires the United States to settle all disputes by peaceful means and not use military force in the absence of an armed attack. The U.N. Charter empowers only the Security Council to authorize the use of force, unless a member state is acting in individual or collective self-defense.


illegal invasion

[Shai Gar]

Wrong answer.

I just went over this in another forum. I will put you through the same wringer....

go ahead, dont expect to win though, i have the power of right on my side and i am willing to spend a decent 10-15 minutes getting information to disprove you at every step. and i havent read the other one, there are so many iraq arguments that i only get involved in a few.

[DevNull]

Your first volley was a tad bit on the weak side. I assume that is why you PM'ed it.

[Shai Gar]

no that PM was slightly different. are you going to debate my first point. in which the US is clearly an international criminal


i am pretty curious as to how a person can defend the US's international actions and still hold that they break no laws.

i could defend the US position very easily and with great fervor, but there is no way i could possibly do it and say that they break no laws. my position would be that the US breaks laws all the time but who is going to stop them, they are not a democracy nor do they hold to human rights, but they are a hyperpower with enough nuclear weapons to annihilate this planet and many others. and the us has has since inception been at war with someone, anyone, hell even their own citizens consititutional rights

[DevNull]

That post above the last was pretty good. give me a few minutes.

[Shai Gar]

okay but dont expect an answer right away, lets keep this thread as an ongoing debate... because i have had too many beers and i need to lie down for a bit

[DevNull]

Too many beers? Good. I'll complement your argument while you are incapacitated. That argument you provided is almost solid. It is well written and well stated. Good job. The best I have seen. You win that one. I concede.

Enter the Oil-for-Food scandal.

International law is made up of treaties and the like. There is no end-all. There is no real enforcer other than those with big guns. It behooves a country to acquire big guns.

The United States sees that there is a power shift that benefits Iraq. Iraq gives under-the-table oil contracts to the French, Russians, and Germans, and gets a pile of money in return. No good.

The UN is ILLEGALLY sanctioning and protecting while profiting from this move.

We are bound by self-preservation to stop this. The UN is on the take and of no help. In fact, they are fighting us. The current US administration is acting morally sound as best they can.

Like I said, congrats. No one has changed my mind much. You have. I am thinking differently about the situation. I knew there was something missing and you are the first person to provide the facts.

This means you have a chance at stage 2.... Were we right to stop the Oil-for-Food scandal? Did we have the moral right to squish it?

[Miss Anthropic]

no, i did not. although that scenario made me laugh, i had a gingerale for breakfast with a fruit mince pie, and then i started pruning, got a coke while working, had another ginger ale, then when i left to check out tannum state high school so i could repeat year 12 i had another ginger ale, i then went into gladstone to do the written test and failed, again, and then bought myself cheerios to cheer me up. then i went to the dump with dad and we bought cokes to take with us
A summertime activity. It is summer in your hemisphere. No shrub pruning here for a couple of months. Cheers if all it takes is cheerios and ginger ale to make you happy! It must be a simple life in kangaroo-a-go-go land.

[Shai Gar]

i woke up just now :)


Too many beers? Good. I'll complement your argument while you are incapacitated. That argument you provided is almost solid. It is well written and well stated. Good job. The best I have seen. You win that one. I concede. thank you, there are more arguments but i cant believe that nobody has ever brought these ones up in this forum, i did it with a slight knowledge of what was going on and 10 minutes with 2 search engines


The United States sees that there is a power shift that benefits Iraq. Iraq gives under-the-table oil contracts to the French, Russians, and Germans, and gets a pile of money in return. No good. no good to the USA of course as they want the monopoly, this itself is no good. and iraq needed that money to keep the country above water, and as that oil is the property of the iraqis they are allowed to do whatever they want with it. the french, russians and germans are all members of the G8 and they oppose the illegal sanctions they have the rights to deal with iraq. as the US and UK have sanctions on iraq is there any suprise as to why those nations did not get deals for the oil?


The UN is ILLEGALLY sanctioning and protecting while profiting from this move. the UN's sanctions were placed in 1990 and the US and UK have made it quite clear that they will block any lifting or serious reforming of the sanctions. those sanctions were legal at the time of placement but they have been illegally kept in place by UK and US. so any illegality of those sanctions are placed firmly at the feet of the partners in evil US and UK. During committee debates, the US (and sometimes also the UK) blocked approval of contracts for Iraq imports under the Oil-for-Food programme, while in the Council France and Russia blocked lesser changes of the sanctions regime, pressing for extensive revamping or lifting of the sanctions. Successive threats of veto blocked action on the damaging consequences of the sanctions, the Oil-for-Food programme, no-fly zones, arms inspections and eventually the war of 2003.
Sanctions Committees operate by consensus. Therefore, in theory, all fifteen Council members have the capacity to block decisions. But in practice, only P5 members regularly use this veto power. P5 Members are the Permenant 5 members of the UN (Britan, China, France, Russia, United States)

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexone.htm

and please do tell as to how the UN profits from the food for oil deal? in a monetary way please, because it is very obvious how they profit in humanitarian and moral ways by giving a drowning nation a chance to survive.


We are bound by self-preservation to stop this. The UN is on the take and of no help. In fact, they are fighting us. The current US administration is acting morally sound as best they can. the US administration is not acting morally but this can best be proved by proving my argument without deviating much. once again how is the UN on the take? i know that they oppose the US a damned lot as the US


Like I said, congrats. No one has changed my mind much. You have. I am thinking differently about the situation. I knew there was something missing and you are the first person to provide the facts. :) i usually hate giving facts because it ruins a good fight, but sometimes there are people who would benefit from knowledge and you are certainly one of those people who i feel would be able to absorb these points and reevaluate your own position.


This means you have a chance at stage 2.... Were we right to stop the Oil-for-Food scandal? Did we have the moral right to squish it? no we did not because the oil for food campaign while it might have had embezzelors it was the only thing keeping the iraqis alive after US and UK sanctions.


this part doesnt have much of an involvement in the argument but i wanted you to know it:
in a statement made by president bush to the UN in 2002 president bush says he will rejoin UNESCO (http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/57/statements/020912usaE.htm)
"As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will return to UNESCO. This organization has been reformed and America will participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance and learning."
this is disregarding the fact that the US was thrown out of UNESCO by popular vote in the general assembly for the invasion of nicuragua

once again if you need more proof i am only too happy to oblige. i realise i havent given much at this stage though

for more information on the Iraq sanctions here is a site with a plethora of links: http://www.iacenter.org/Iraq_santions-war.htm

[Shai Gar]

wow, i just reviewed my post and damn that one is weak, i really need to strengthen it, but out of curiosity devnull, why havent you attacked that argument? it is clearly fairly week and it didnt address a lot of what you have said.

[DevNull]

why havent you attacked that argument?

First off because you gave me a lot to chew on with your first volley. The system of international laws is a harsh one.

Second, because your second post was, indeed, a slight bit weak, but of course it was understandably weak. We are dealing with a very complex system at this point and we are not exactly in tune with each other's debating style etc. Your facts are presented as facts so I see no need to "one-up" you on anything. Not only can't I counter your last post at this point, but I can't even begin to imagine how I would handle re-writing it in my head so's to better understand it.

This may actually take me a while.

The main point I keep coming back to in my mind is the Oil-for-Food scandal. You apparently see it as an Iraq survival thing and I see it is a multi-tiered power consolidation thing involving many, MANY factions. I feel that we may never get over this hump.... at least until some more facts break.

All in all, you are not misrepresenting anything or relying on emotions or lies, so I am stuck here with no place to start. I hate when that happens. It means I actually have to dig in and start research from scratch and I was not built for that sort of thing. I usually rely on watching some well-defined pundit, or pundits, and then digging in from there with any inconsistencies. Not many people take the analysis of the Iraq conflict to this level. You should be proud.

Oh yeah, one more angle is that you and I have the (historically anyway) European descendant thing going, but we are in different sovereign countries. It is so much easier to banter back and forth with a fellow countryman even if in disagreement. There are so many things that must be addressed when analyzing and comparing when we are from different countries and thus have added different points of view.

[Edmond Zedo]

Yeah, the crushing of Iraq was at least half for the benefit of the US alone. Other countries can just "deal."

[songbird36]

[QUOTE=DevNull]we are not exactly in tune with each other's debating style etc.

The aforementioned poster's debating style is as follows:

he puts one hand on his dick and the other holding a Penthouse magazine; while fumbling around for the Google search button with his right big toe

[DevNull]

The aforementioned poster's debating style is as follows:

he puts one hand on his dick and the other holding a Penthouse magazine; while fumbling around for the Google search button with his right big toe

You have to admit, at any rate, that *is* style!

I'd be all like, "Yo, check this.. I have the internet at my disposal but I choose to pay $4.95 for a softcore porn magazine that barely shows any pink!".

Are you insane, Songbird?

[booyalab]

are you kidding? that was the coolest thing she's posted to date. "rock on!!"

[Network Alchemy]

stop petting and debate

[booyalab]

stop petting and debate

what are you? the debate overseer? I already said all I need to on this thread (the posts of which will be rather limited because of how narrow and concrete the topic is) no point in rehashing.

[Network Alchemy]

i was not talking about you

[booyalab]

i was not talking about you

in that case, this topic is undebatable

[knome]

zing! And yes, booyalab, alchemy is indeed, the master of debating.

On the topic, while I will not debate the legality of invasion ( I am not highly knowledgable in internaltional law ), it seems to me the proper course of action. By the things I have seen and read the US gave Iraq quite a bit of assistance in creating its pre-invasion chemical and biological weapon stockpiles in order to help Iraq against Iran back during that conflict. It seems to me the US has a bad tendancy to create and strengthen its enemies' enemies, not thinking that the enemies of the enemies of the US tend to one day also be enemies of the US. (say that five times fast, or make sense of it, whichever is harder) Once mutual enmity disipates, the things the US has created tend to turn back against it.

The US helped a tyrant fight one of its enemies, that tyrant than turned those weapons inward and used them to commit genocidal acts against the people of his country. While legally the US may have been in the wrong for the invasion, morally, I do not see how it could standby while someone used weapons the US was responsible for helping to create in acts of genocide. It seems right to me that the US removed him for these things.

[Network Alchemy]

as usual booyalab has confused me ~ i was attempting to point out with humour that shai gar and devnull were complimenting eachother more than arguing which reminded me too much of an old russian couple i met around 1840 who when questioned by me about the length of their marriage produced different answers but instead of arguing kept saying the other was right and after some moments that the other was right about the other being right but they were most likely joking around because eventually a 50 cent song started playing from a far away cello and they danced the night away

[DevNull]

i was attempting to point out with humour that shai gar and devnull were complimenting eachother more than arguing

I cannot speak for Shai, but I am sincerely interested in truth, not arguing. Yes my style may seem argumentative at first, but hey, what can I say. I am a proud Bush voter and am convinced this Iraq war is neccesary on many levels. I am used to everything coming down to arguing and it is a hard posting style to shake, even in the land of logic here. I am not afraid to find out if I am wrong especially since there are a few missing pieces to the puzzle.

[Network Alchemy]

i am confused once again although i am guessing my ignorance of punctuation has something to do with it

i am saying you two were being too nice and not arguing enough

i hope that is clear now

[Network Alchemy]

yes i do feel like a mean person now which is an unpleasant feeling

regardless ~ i enjoy manual labor because nothing is better then breaking ones back for minimum wage and using the martyr concept as pretence to its acceptability

[ohnoaninfp]

Why even bother pruning?

[jimkopelli]

So your shrubberies don't bury your house...

I have to do manual labor every now and then as well... we have a family farm (extended family, old people) with which they need help occasionally... so we have to drive an hour to the ass end of nowhere to help out out there.

Then the food sucks.

Bah.

It all really depends on the type of work. If I like the work, I don't mind. If I don't like the work, then it's annoying.

[Shai Gar]

yes devnull i too am interested in the truth and i prefer to debate properly without arguing


Once mutual enmity disipates, the things the US has created tend to turn back against it. the US tends to turn its backs on them not the other way around. a la afghanistan and in this case also iraq, but it turned its back on iraq after they invaded kuwait, giving the US cause to fear that iraq was going to assimilate all the regions oil and create a monopoly from which they could turn away from the us. in actuality saddam received mixed messages from the us command in saudi arabia giving what he thought to be the green light to invade


While legally the US may have been in the wrong for the invasion, morally, I do not see how it could standby while someone used weapons the US was responsible for helping to create in acts of genocide. It seems right to me that the US removed him for these things.
the US knew of saddams gassing the kurds when in happened, hell before it happened (argue that all you want for now soon i will be adding facts to back that up) . and the united states gave a statement shortly after the gassing that they still considered him a moderate and one of their allies. the US changing iraqs status happened after the invasion of kuwait and the genocide had little to do with it, a minority of the blame for that falls squarely on the shoulders of the US. knome, have you heard of the bombing of the al-shifa plant in sudan? or its disasterous consequences? the us uses its weapons all the time for genocide, or it hands them out to be used by clients for genocide (israel, indonesia, etc)

i do not have continuous use of the internet so my posts will be only about one or two a day, but i shall endeavor to keep them well informed, later on this afternoon (aest) i shall bulk this one out a it with more facts. and when did this thread turn into a manual labour thread?