wow sorry meant to say his name was Crono not Chrono. Sorry guys.

metroidhunter7

It has been a long time and even now i remember that i was always confused by the exact timelines of the Gurus. you could well be right about the continuity error.

1.) Did you like the game?brickdoctor

No, after playing MGS1 this game was a big dissapointment. In the begining I felt it was too 'cookie cutter' filling exaclty the same mold as the first one. In the end my feelings were confirmed, and the story took a turn for the contrived... really contrived.

2.) On a scale of one to ten, how hard is the gamebrickdoctor

I agree that the difficultylevel is about 5/10

You will die once or twice. if you are commited there is no chance you will get stuck in the game.

3.) Would you reccomend the game to mebrickdoctor

No, I would not reccomend it. unless you are collecting MGS titles, you could use these 10 hours to play RE5 or read a book.

4.) Is the game a nescisary addition to my Metal Gear collection?

Your help is much appreciated.

brickdoctor

it is necessary for your collection to be complete...

I will respond later, I have various responsibilities this afternoon. Yes, it is cathartic. Interestingly, I included a statement concerning the cathartic nature of arguments, disagreements, insults, and posturing, though I removed it.

while I will edit and respond, it needs to be clear that your continued posturing is apparent and obnoxious. Why not take a different approach? I'm literally exhausted by your continued use of the word "posture" in relation to my behavior. I will not address this specific subject again unless you refrain from posturing and I continue to do so.

YourChaosIsntMe

I am out of steam, which is why i stopped arguing and began to simply offer harsh critiques, it is evident that we have reached the point of mutual disagreemnent where we must acknowldge that at the present our differences cannot be reconciled. That long one went on and on so i see why you may have confused some of it with my more recent post. In my last post I mentioned posturing only once in order to acknoledge that it was in poor taste to call you out publicly, and that doing so publicly made it appear that i was posturing myself, again, I appologise. by all means have the last words when you are ready.

I was glad to read through your other posts that you have been as amused as I have.

How did your research paper go? Do you need a proof reader? Just kidding... or am i?

Peace.

"Out of hand" has transitioned to "completely ridiculous," so I am changing gears (though I am certain I will not be able to resist responding to a few things from your last post. Sorry but you will have to look back to determine context).

It is obvious that I am trolling more than a little bit. Though we do not agree, you do not have to take my strongly worded derisive attacks that seriously, at least not the derisive part.

The purpose of discourse has come into question. To my mind, one cannot win or lose a conversation, in a conversation people share ideas and potentially come to agreements. One cannot win or lose an argument; one could persuade others to their point, be persuaded, or reach a point of mutual disagreement agreed irresolvable at the present. And pig-headed-shouting matches like ours, well... at least there are no winners :) .

The statement about winning aside, to try is to attempt, if you will look back you will find that I was belittling you, not trying to belittle you (which you imply is dependent on your reception of the comments, but in fact simply requires me to be rude).

Obviously I disagree that your assertions are "inarguable facts (or logical conclusions)[.]" For one to define one's own argument in these terms is somehow distasteful in my mind.

Frivolous, not "frivilous," I left in a lot of little errors to (Get it? to/too!) but I bring this one up because "frivilous" is not phonetic. Here is the first time I have used a dictionary for any of our conversation, here because it has an audio pronunciation guide: http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/audio.pl?frivol05.wav=frivolous say it with me, "frivolous." Insults and derision will not support my argument, but through the anonymity of the internet, I think we can agree that they can be fun, even cathartic (in a stretched sense of the word).

Here I switch out of gear to respond that supporting local produce does not necessitate anti-globalization. Since you brought up globalization independently, I never thought to clarify. I have commented briefly on negative impacts not readily perceptible to the uninformed observer, but no, I do not want to go out and sink all the cargo ships... but that might look cool, they should do it in a movie in cinemascope (exceptionally wide aspect ratio)! Okay! It sounds like I am back in gear.

You have a very loose definition of plagiarism. If I told you that I love Pringles and that once I open a can I cannot stop eating them, would you tell me that I was plagiarizing their slogan? I have opinions of my own, some are similar to other's opinions, and yet this is not plagiarism. Perhaps you should dig out the dictionary on this one.

Thesaurus? No, I am not using one, nor a dictionary, nor Wikipedia (beyond where cited). I will choose to take the thesaurus comment as a complement on my vocabulary, the dictionary as to the accuracy of my use of speech, and Wikipedia as to your own need to fact check because, yes you should fact check all of this yourself anyways.

Third Reich, I knew this would come up some how. Okay, here it goes: "No! You are the Nazi, you Nazi!" (5 minute brake to laugh my ass off)

Okay, another break from my amusements, who is the arbiter of whose opinions matter? I know that I have not gone out of my way to cite real world sources for my convictions, but then again, I have not made blanket statements like this one. My original position was a single bullet point on the agendas of such movements as those you have mentioned. I do not believe that is enough justification to lump me with them.

Of course I selectively chose which statements to refute, you may not have noticed but that last post was 18 pages long when put into a word processing document.

A. "inadequate" means "unable to meet needs" (I am not using a dictionary, so if you want to use one you can correct me if I am wrong). I do not believe that you will argue that there are not people out there with needs not fulfilled by the economy (so may negatives in that sentence it can be hard to wrap your head around). B. My opinions are based on my experience and education followed by contemplative reflection, and that is why I believe them to be correct, not because they are more rational. C. We will never know until we try.

Omnipotence means absolute power; I believe you meant omniscience which means absolutely knowledge. With omniscience I would know your motives; with omnipotence I would dictate your motives.

Your history adds about as much credence to your current platform as one black person at a GOP convention. Without supporting how and why your beliefs changed, it simply sounds foolish to bring it up. I believe that a person who has fully transitioned from one ideology to another should be able to speak of the two using concrete terms rather than opinionated statements of the foolhardy actions of those poor, simple, ignorant, people whom have not seen the light like you have.

Sorry for calling you out publicly for posturing, as I said before, the message was meant to be private until I discovered it was too long. I do acknowledge that in public view this does seem as though I would have you and others question your validity based on this: it was not intended.
Defining utopia is not posturing, especially when the accurate definition of the word has come into question. "[A] clear misunderstanding for the purpose of dictionaries and encyclopedias[?]" My point was that you cannot expect that I was using a subtle and more obscure interpretation of "utopic" when the most common, most accepted definition is not only contextually correct, but makes more sense than the variant. Not enough room in the dictionary to explain philosophical implications? More like the dictionary is not the appropriate place for this. Not enough room on Wikipedia? I have already acknowledged that it is not a scholarly academic source but in theory, I do not believe Wikipedia's storage space is bound by any limits that we could realistically encounter when storing text and small pictures.

"My understanding of Utopia is concise, and as to your statement that it's common knowledge...a lot of things are common knowledge in simplified form, dumbed down for the lowest-common denominator so they can "kind of understand" when they read it in Oxford's." This sounds very cynical and if you have a concise understanding then that contradicts your assertion that an understanding of utopia could not fit in various reference sources.
Irony is when you use words to denotes something other than their literal interpretation, you misused it once in this post and once in the last.

"You introduced and supported the locally-grown movement, which shares a number of connections with the anti-globalization movement (in terms of participants and NGOs/NPOs. Does your perspective on this subject not share many tenets with said movement?" No. With a single bullet point you are not aware of my full perspective, and you know what happens when you assume... and i did not introduce any movement, i simply said it would be responsible to buy local tomatoes, way back when...

Transcendent is not exactly the adjective I would use to describe you.

"I'm sorry, but what I said about the slippery slope stands." Did you mean to say "peaceful standing on a level field, but I am right, so you can suck it!"?

Interest in my educational background aside, on a still day I can pee 5.5 feet.

Something is banal because it is obvious and boring, not "because it accomplishes nothing." Not using a dictionary, it is just something people should know. Furthermore, jumping to conclusions as you do will not serve you well in your minor. Also, to describe something "interesting," but also as "banal" is conflicted at best.

You ought to be careful with the "inclusive 'you'" when directly addressing someone. The proper way to share such thoughts without confusion is to replace 'you' with 'one.'

Following a rhetorical question with a sentence identifying the subject simply as "It" is not advisable. You would do better to define your subject than assume that the reader has guessed it. I did guess it, but just the same...

"I believe the individual is typically simplistic and predictable." I believe that your beliefs, if not reassessed, will cause you to be unhappy and lonely. Why do I have to be an 'ist' or part of an 'ism.' My answer is that I do not, you see, I am an individual.

While "fallacious" may fit in context, I do not believe it is the most apt question because if you substituted "fallacious" with "facetious" you would get to the hart of the matter. And yes, I am being quite exaggeratedly facetious.

"D- on reading comprehension." Reading comprehension tests are administered using well written, focused, and syntactically correct texts. I would question the value of using any of your comments thus far to assess someone.

The point was never OMG GMO's are the worst, the point was that the way Conagra has utilized GMO's is shameful.
HTML is about the simplest code around, to quote you I simply copied your post, then copy/pasted code amounting to about 2 tags (I forget if this is the right term or not) wherever I wanted to offer a response.

What is "taking the mickey?"

You are 1 in a 1000, "thank you" YourChaosIsntMe

Now, ConAgra. I'll try to paraphrase my responses, because you said a lot here (sic). I know what information your opinion is based on (and if your opinion is based on biased primarily uncited Wikipedia pages then...), because I shared many of your views of ConAgra between 1999 and 2005. I read the information in zines, periodicals, record liner notes, and open public records What makes your (general) position skewed is the way in which you and others who share the same or similar views misinterpret statistics (to understand the statistics you quoted, you need to compare and contrast with what we could call the "business standard"). Sometimes, you (and others) go as far as believing and espousing information that is no longer valid or is rendered void due to business reform and/or federal regulation reform. You specifically don't seem to place your examples from Wikipedia into context when you consider them.
YourChaosIsntMe

"Sometimes, you...," you are putting words into my mouth again, I do not appreciate it. I am happy to backup or reconsider anything that I have said, but constantly correcting you for having attributed notions or such to me inaccurately is wearing on me

Likewise, the conclusion that you come to about ConAgra is values-based. It needs to be clear that while I make a generalization, it is only meant to imply that people, regardless of their ideology, tend to come to conclusions and develop ideas based upon their subjective values and morals, experiences, self-interested interpretation of statistics, and assumptions, whether they be anti-globalization anarchists or right-wing neocons.
YourChaosIsntMe

again you neglect to include the subject of your argument and I am thus disarmed against rebutting your argument. That said, you are more foolish than I thought if you believe that individuals regularly go through the thought process you described. Many people simply do not have the resources to investigate their choices in that manner and others are unwilling, while still others may in fact research all of their choices. I believe in the individual, but I do not believe that majority of people have put that degree of thought into whether they should buy Skippy or Peter Pan peanut butter

I'll approach these statistics one by one, and attempt to address each in two sentences or less. Environmental issues - One of the largest agribusiness firms is not carbon-efficient, duh. Oh, don't forget about the inconclusive nature of research concerning the net human effect on global warming vs environment factors...and...wait...the CERES report? Hahahahaha; when you research this, don't forget that Wikipedia is governed by popular opinion, not institutes, universities, and regulatory bodies. Don't forget one last thing: in terms of increased expenditures business tends to follows government. Labor issues: Oh my God, they laid some people off. You know what I love? Socialism and trade unionism. Mhmm. Some of the examples ConAgra should be criticized for, but a corporate entity (or individual) can never adhere to ethical and/or moral standards 100% of the time. Sorry.
YourChaosIsntMe

Is socialism a dirty word to you? Just asking... "duh" does not inspire me to be extra articulate in my own response. Is there a reason not to strive for 100%? It seems like a good cause to me.... I think I just figured it out. I was blocking it out because it was obvious why you would dislike me, but you HATE people don't you? You cannot stand them, that is why it is okay for "thousands" of people to be disgruntled based on policies you support and for others to lose their once stable jobs at a corporation you cheerlead, isn't it.

Health issues: There was a Salmonella outbreak you say? Dear lord, because that doesn't happen to at least four companies globally at least once a year. Oh look! The plants were nearly shut down half a dozen times. Citations needed? Hmmm, dubious. Wait, a citation...wait...WAIT A MINUTE....The Activist Group Center for Science in The Public Interest. You know crap like that is about as objective as Christian Science, right?
YourChaosIsntMe

Do you disagree that they could EASILY do MUCH better.

Ethical Issues: Again, no one person or entity can abide by ethical or moral standards 100% of the time (especially not moral standards). While many, many, many firms (including ConAgra) have disregarded ethical standards throughout history, the rate at which this occurs is becoming minimal, because it is becoming more taboo in Western culture. Wait...an historic building? Oh no. Wait...Multinational Monitor...a corporate watchdog group? I smell shenanigans on this Wikipedia page!
YourChaosIsntMe

Again, the Wikipedia page was for your benefit, I was already aware of its contents from sources more reputable than Wikipedia.

Genetically modified food? This is where you come off worst. Only selfish, arrogant, self-righteous, ignorant pseudo-intellectuals prostest against genetically modified food. It's so wrong dude. Well, tell that to the billions of people living below the poverty line that couldn't afford basic food staples if it weren't for the advancements in biology and chemistry (and the application of) that makes genetically modified food possible.
YourChaosIsntMe

GMO are not evil because natures goodness and purity should not be touched by the cold yet benevolent had of technology. Corn was modified to its current state by native South Americans and Californians and it is arguably one of the very most important crops in the world. What is wrong with companies like Conagra use of GMO is that they patent their product and seek out GMO attributes which have not been fully researched and are potentially ecologically and economically destructive. Two fields of wheat, one GMO, the other grown from seeds stored from the previous year. Winds and cross pollination can cause wheat in the second field to present attributes of the GMO as well as GMO seeds being transported in uncovered trucks which routinely spill into neighboring fields. Conagra tests fields near their own to ensure that others are not "stealing" their product. Conagra discovers their stolen GMO on the second farm and take the owner to court. They argue that the GMO is their property and that the other farm's seed supply has been contaminated with GMO seeds. The farmer is required to destroy their seed reserves to avoid patent infringement. The farmer then has no choice but to replace their crop with GMO which they can produce a receipt for. GMO are designed with terminator genes which causes them to be infertile, so the farmer must purchase new next year what they have always had for free in the past. Eventually costs become overwhelming and the farm is sold to Conagra at a loss. Try and tell me that does not suck, or does not happen....

Keep in mind that I didn't cite anything, and I didn't quote anything. The point remains, multinational agribusiness is not inherently bad (nor is it inherently good), and the local-only and anti-globalization movement is full of a bunch of True Believer wingnuts.
YourChaosIsntMe

I did note that you have not cited anything, meaning that all of your arguments are at this point based on hearsay. That next point sounds like a very opinionated and emotional plea to me... (I see it as a good thing that you care about the points you are arguing, so emotion is no problem so long as it is tempered by rational thought). I cannot help but feel that you are calling me a "True Believer Wingnut," which is okay, because I started the name calling, it is just that again you are posturing for others when you could just go ahead and tell me. And again you have not developed your ideas thoroughly enough for me to retort. Tell me, what are the qualities of a "True Believer Wingnut" and I will let you know if I feel your statement is accurate.

This is so a journal entry and a response. Yes, I save my better discussion post rambles in my journal. If you read it all, cool. If not, I don't really care. I compose these essays and ad hoc rambles for myself just as much as I do to elicit a response from others. Take it as you will. I'm done though man. I've got a research paper to write tomorrow. Too bad I can't ramble like this on that one...I'd get it done in a jiff.
YourChaosIsntMe

How am I supposed to interpret this fact that you save discussion threads; what is it supposed to mean to me? I would have suggested that you save it anyways, it is always amusing to see how we have grown by reexamining our past experiences. In this case let us hope that you look back and recognize substantial growth, at least in terms of your analytical writing. For your sake I hope your professors never encounter your work at this level of discourse :) .

I was going to pm this but it turned out to be too many words.

[QUOTE="ganjalo"] YourChaosIsntMe

As to the idea of a private message, the possibility of placating you ended when you remained hostile, arrogant, and condescending. Likewise, do you think it fair to act in such a manner while repeating previous insults, and then demand a private response? Your behaviour isn't very endearing, to say the least. The irony of your disposition is that the validity of your opinions is almost exclusively contingent on my being "immature." So, before any formal response, I beg the question: do you associate hostility, arrogance, and near-plaigiarism with maturity?
YourChaosIsntMe

First, I'll address the constant theme of maturity. Your judgment that I am necessarily immature or "juvenile" is based upon value judgments, primarily. While this may also be your method of gaining the upper-hand, I like to believe that's not true. If it is, then your opinion has no validity at all. But, I will assume that it isn't. Your conclusion that I am somehow immature is entirely informed by the assumption that your opinion is inherently correct, when you've offered little more than token gestures and catchphrases in relation to our original disagreement or the successive disagreements (I'll get to your ConAgra statistics in a second).
YourChaosIsntMe

You also consider and criticize what appears to you as disparate and irrelevant information. Why bring up the national economy? Why bring up the mechanization of agriculture techniques? Because everything is interrelated. This is all relevant.
YourChaosIsntMe

Agribusiness has a major impact on the national and global economy, as does the business model which is dominant. What you vaguely posit on a large scale would effectively minimize agricultural productivity (in terms of yield and profits) by at least 15%, if not more.
YourChaosIsntMe

Discussions cannot be as linear as you seem to want them to be.
YourChaosIsntMe

I bring up those topics because they are directly or indirectly related to the main topic. Furthermore, this issue of identity crisis that you refer to, did you not pay attention when I told you that I'm going to declare a minor in Psychology? Did you really believe that it wouldn't be blatantly obvious that you don't know what you're talking about? Everything I referred to about my 16 year-old personality was supposed to be taken as emphasis of my criticisms for the anti-globalization and anti-multinational agribusiness movement. Those ideologies, movements, and organization are all related. This same logic also applies to the "irrelevant" topics that I referred to. How you relate "he's bringing secondary related topics into the discussion" with "he's going through an identity crisis." Since you seem to know so much about ethical theory and logic, I'm sure you know what a hasty generalization is. If you don't, I'm sure Wikipedia does.
YourChaosIsntMe

Why did you have to go and play semantics? I really suggest that you stop relying on the dictionary and Wikipedia for your information. You offer a very rigid and linear definition of utopia directly out of a dictionary, which is inarguably correct to be sure, but such rigidity belies the nature of philosophy, ethics, and most of the other social sciences. Utopia is a novel by Thomas Moore. The term itself is taken from this novel, and largely defined by this novel. In it, Moore himself implies the impossibility of utopia. Moore enjoyed what we could generally call "word games." An example that comes to mind is his use of anywhere and nowhere, and the inevitable relationship these have with possible and impossible. Furthermore, you don't seem to realize that cultural circumstances have implications on this subject. While Dictionary.com, Oxford's, or Wikipedia will give you the information that you stated, to understand and actively discuss the concept and it's definition, you need to be more privy to philosophical discourse; many modernist and existentialist philosophers would define utopia as impossible, among other things. Sartre implies this in his The Age of Reason.
YourChaosIsntMe

Again, your conclusion of this paragraph is a value-based judgment. While I appreciate your rationality here, your conclusion is still your opinion, with no valid basis in fact. How do I know this? I've read all of the skewed facts and statistics, the information taken out of context, and by my own admission, some valid information. Remember, such change is gradual.
YourChaosIsntMe

Well...it wasn't short. Surprise!
YourChaosIsntMe

You're absolutely correct on the topic of suburban sprawl. At the same time, I didn't make a correlation between suburban sprawl and some type of compromise. Some of the things you state are certainly generalizations, but it's technically correct. I apologize for bringing it up, because it seems like my use of it confused you; it was simply used to emphasis the rapidity of urbanization.
YourChaosIsntMe

On to the concept of the slippery slope. Wikipedia certainly explains it in it's entirety (in simplistic terms), it does not express the scope of the concept. Again, we're on the topic of the linearity of Wikipedia. This is inevitable due to the nature of Wikipedia. Only the definition or explanation of a subject which is accepted by close to 100% of people will be permitted to remain on Wikipedia. Like the concept of "utopia," Wikipedia is simply inadequate as a source of conclusive information (though it certainly helps for a somewhat in-depth overview). Your slippery slope is the the one which all anti-globalization/anti-multinational business activists fall victim to (the consequential effect of corporate agribusiness).
YourChaosIsntMe

A slippery slope does not necessarily require a small "first step" and increasingly larger successive "steps." Nor does it necessarily require action, or any verb at all on the part of an individual or group of individuals.
YourChaosIsntMe

Finally, and I quote (you), "it is not important anyway because the slippery slope is a logical fallacy." Yes, you're right; it is a major concept in logic that belongs to the group of logical fallacies. The slippery slope is true when an individual or individuals commit this specific fallacy. They are said to have argued fallaciously utilizing a slippery slope fallacy. Of course, a slipper slope can be correct, provided each step in the process is validated and deemed correct. The use of said fallacy requires that a conclusion is made based on the assumption that "....necessarily follows _____."
YourChaosIsntMe

Not to sound snide, but it helps when you learn about ethics, logic, etc. from people with doctorates rather than Wikipedia and disparate and/or sporadic individual research. Because of your statement which I quoted and the last four sentences in the paragraph (everything not from Wikipedia), it is clear to me that you have no formal knowledge on logical fallacies (nor did you fully understand it in your Wikipedia research).
YourChaosIsntMe

The Yes Men are an interesting agitation propaganda-performance art-direct action act. While it is interesting and the concept amusing, it is also trite and banal; it is commentary on the obvious.
YourChaosIsntMe

Furthermore, there's nothing new about agitation propaganda and subversive activism. Chumbawamba were doing it in 1979, and Alexander Berkman was doing it in late 19th century, though The Yes Men were certainly more inventive (with the exception of Duchamp, obviously). In fact, your reference to The Yes Men says more about you than anything else you have said.
YourChaosIsntMe

It actually clarifies why you're so hostile, arrogant, and morally superior. To actually respect such activism necessitates a linear perspective. It requires that your perception of the world be in relative absolutes. While I can't make a conclusive generalization about your character, it certainly provides me with some insight.
YourChaosIsntMe

YourChaosIsntMe

So it sounds like you have gone through some major identity changes since you were 16, I guess that you are still feeling conflicted with some of the changes based on your bringing up so many issues that I never even said a word about like national economies, mechanical combine harvesting and such. "Utopia" actually means "nowhere," not "impossible." When I said Utopic I was not implying that your ideal global economy was impossible, but that it does not exist and that the path we are on is not the right choice towards achieving those ideals.

Suburban Sprawl is actually rooted in WWII when GIs, black and white, returned from the war and had considerable amounts of money which they did not have available before thanks to their war time salaries and conservation at home during the war effort. Black people started moving to nicer neighborhoods and white people started moving out of those neighborhoods. The result is greater populations living closer to rural areas and commuting to urban areas for work. This practice has had at least as many negative impacts as it has had positives. This did not come to be as a compromise between agricultural and urban communities

I do not believe you completed your thought about the slippery slope. From Wikipedia: "In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also the thin edge of the wedge or the camel's nose) is a classical informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] In broader, especially recent, pragmatic usage, the term slippery slope argument alternately refers to a non-fallacious argument that such undesirable events are rendered more probable. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B." You did not say what the first decision was or in what direction the following decisions would lead. It is not important anyways because the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It is unreasonable to suggest that because we make one choice today we must inevitably make another choice tomorrow. If it were true then we wouldn't really have a 'choice' tomorrow, would we?

I am done. I was done the moment you suggested that we might "hope" to have an interest like the WTO. WTO, WTF! I am guessing you did not like The Yes Men? One last bit about Conagra though:

ConAgra

My information on conagra is skewed? The only thing I said was that they are an evil faceless company. How were you able to interpret the information that my opinion was based on?

The negative effects of large scale agribusiness are in no way fictitious, especially concerning those using GMO's like Conagra and Monsanto. You do not have to look far to find that GMOs are not bad simply because they are modified with terminator genes which could destroy all life on the planet (Cross pollination could spread the terminator gene to other plants which would die off and possibly collapse a vital part of the ecosystem causing other areas to be effected to the extent that the ecosystem cannot recover). One of the worst things about these companies is that they are irresponsible with their products, allowing them to cross pollinate with other farms and then accusing those other farms of stealing their patented crops, forcing them to destroy seed reserves and to sell their farms.

You cannot say that Conagra invests in communities by buying privately owned farms. What do those communities do when that money runs out?

"I'm supposed to be concerned because a private business owner is now making 60,000 a year as management instead of, say, 150,000 a year?" in short YES!

The following is copied directly from Conagra's Wikipedia page:

Environmental issues

ConAgra has been criticized for its lack of response to global warming. A 2006 report by CERES, a non-profit organization that works to address global climate change and other sustainability issues, titled "Corporate Governance and Climate Change: Making the Connection," measures how 100 leading global companies are responding to global warming. Companies in the report were evaluated on a 0 to 100 scale. ConAgra scored a total of 4 points, the lowest of any of the food companies rated.[3]
In 2003-2004, ConAgra participated in a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency voluntary investigation and clean-up program. Through the program, the company cleaned up a property previously used for lithium ore processing and constructed a new 80,000-square-foot (7,000 m2) office/warehouse building.[4]

[edit] Labor issues

In May 2003, ConAgra and its subsidiary Gilroy Foods agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle charges of hiring discrimination brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The charges involved a July 1999 Teamsters strike at a plant in King City, CA, then owned by Basic Vegetable Products LP but later purchased by ConAgra. In August 2001, the company successfully negotiated with the union to end the two-year strike with a new contract that would recall workers based on seniority. However, the recall process excluded workers who were on leave at the time of the purchase including those out due to work injury or pregnancy. Others were denied jobs due to a history of previous injury or illness, despite their having no restrictions on returning to work. According to the EEOC, most of the 39 workers who were excluded from the recall process had been working at the plant for 10 to 30 years and were primarily Hispanic and female.[5]
The company's Greeley, Colorado, plant had been cited almost 10 times from 1999 to 2002 for violating worker safety.[6]

[edit] Health issues

In 2001, the U.S. Department of Agriculture halted operations at two ConAgra plants because of health violations. The company was threatened with shutdowns at least a half dozen more times.[citation needed] The ConAgra facility in Longmont, Colorado, had the highest rate of salmonella among all the turkey processors tested by the Department during 2001. Nearly half of the turkeys processed at ConAgra's Longmont, Colorado, facility were contaminated with harmful Salmonella bacteria, compared with a rate of 13 percent for the industry at large according to the activist group Center for Science in the Public Interest.[7]

[edit] Ethical issues

In 1997, ConAgra pled guilty to federal criminal charges that its Peavey Grain unit illegally sprayed water on stored grain to increase its weight and value and also bribed Federal inspectors. The company agreed to pay $8.3 million to resolve the charges, which included a $4.4 million criminal fine, $3.45 million as compensation for illegal profits and $450,000 to reimburse the U.S. Department of Agriculture for storage and investigation expenses. ConAgra had also paid $2 million to settle a related civil case filed by a group of Indiana farmers.[8]
ConAgra was responsible for the demolition of one of the largest sites on the National Registrar of Historic Places when it destroyed over 20 historic structures in "Jobbers Canyon," a 19th century warehouse district along the banks of the Missouri River in Downtown Omaha, Nebraska. The demolition was performed to make room for a sprawling new corporate campus, and prompted protests and lawsuits from historic preservationists. Charles Harper, the chief executive of ConAgra at the time, described the structures as "some big, ugly red brick buildings." The National Trust for Historic Preservation asked that the historic legacy of a city and region not be held hostage to the narrow corporate preferences of a single commercial enterprise. But ConAgra refused to reconsider. The Jobbers Canyon district was adjacent to another historic district, "The Old Market," which has proved to be an important center of cultural, tourist, and residential development in Omaha.
Multinational Monitor, a corporate watchdog organization, named ConAgra one of the 'Top 100 Corporate Criminals of the 1990s'.[9]

[edit] Genetically-modified food

In 2002, ConAgra, together with other major food and beverage companies including PepsiCo, General Mills, Kelloggs, Sara Lee, and H.J. Heinz Co., spent heavily to defeat Oregon's measure 27, which would have required food companies to label products that contain genetically modified ingredients.[10] According to the Oregon Secretary of State, ConAgra contributed $71,000 to the campaign to defeat the ballot initiative.[11]

lets have future posts on this thread relate only to the OP (assuming we have not choked the thread to death already), if you wish to debate this further you can PM me.

[QUOTE="ganjalo"]YourChaosIsntMe

My concern is not for those who are being harmed now, it is for their children, and their children's children. Those who are being harmed are inevitably in a very stressful situation, but life isn't fair. The quality of life for rural America will continue to degrade until rural America accepts big business - Wal-Mart and ConAgra. Individuals in developing and under-developed nations that have eschewed isolationism have enjoyed an increase in their quality life, though negative consequences still exist. An example of a negative consequence, ironically, are those Amazon natives that once farmed the Amazon basin whom are now being forced off their land by subsidiaries of ConAgra. This consequence is both sociological and environmental, as those natives once used sustainable cultivation methods, while the new farmers, unfettered by typical regulations that exist in developed nations, are using slash-and-burn tactics which decimate the arable land. High yield in the short-term, destructive in the long-term.

In essence, the best solution is for private farms to become subsidiaries of multinational agribusiness firms, retain the majority of their workforce, continue to use sustainable cultivation methods, and embrace the nature of importing and exporting products (which goes without saying for a subsidiary of a major firm). In general, for any industry that you can think of, the idea of "buy local" or "buy U.S." does not make economic sense, and only makes sociological sense for the small minority, and only in the short-term.