We start chowing down on insects for future food consumption like they keep saying we'll have to, this place will be in hog heaven.

Cheers!

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
Thanks for the quality :

In reply to this comment by carneval:
*quality chow right here

Thanks for the quality

In reply to this comment by carneval:
*quality chow right here

*quality chow right here

My town has an ordinance against pitbulls, rotweillers, and chows, if caught there is a fine and the dog is picked up by animal control and destroyed.

I don't think the links he's making make much sense. By his argument, every time we do something morally wrong or intellectually stupid, it contradicts our belief that we are good or smart. However, I don't think most people believe they are so good, or so smart, that they will always make the correct choice. Making bad choices isn't a conflict of character. It's the reality of being imperfect beings. This doesn't parallel the cultists who invest their entire identity in the idea that they are making a particular important decision correctly and later have to face the fact they were not.

The case of factory farms also seems inappropriate. We've seen several animal slaughter/torture videos on the sift. Most omnivores in the comments don't deny that modern farm animals live miserable tortured lives, nor that our meat consumption is responsible for their situation. Instead they argue that there's no moral imperative for one species (humans) to treat another species (pigs) well. If that's how you feel about it, then you can chow down on pork chops without any cognitive dissonance whatsoever.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

I met this man a couple of years ago at the WWII monument in DC. He does this every year and salutes for an INCREDIBLY long time. I wouldn't be surprised to find out he has some kind of brace holding his arm up. I know mine would fall off after a mere 10 minutes.


ya you could tell his shit was getting tired and sore. i once had to present arms to a melting ice cream cone for 4 hours back in basic after getting caught sneaking ice cream from the chow hall on kp duty. thought my arm was gonna fall off. Respect.

god marine dress is so much sharper than the green army shit.

>> ^Samaelsmith:

Pomeranian?
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> Simple_Man said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/s/Simple_Man-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow"></div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">Can anyone name what kind of dog it is?
</div></div></div>

I was thinking that or a Chow puppy. He doesn't have the Chow's blue tongue but he also looks a little thick for a Pomeranian.

>> ^JesseoftheNorth:
That really irks me. Chinese is an ethnicity - not a language.


English is not a language either...it is a dog-bowl of Purina dog chow and it tastes bad. I find it funny that the only people that mess up the "Chinese" = language part are the children and the blonde lady...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

the equivalent of marching into a vegan's house and DEMANDING that they personally butcher a cow and chow down on the resulting BBQ.
So when advocates demand gay marriage and DO NOT account for these distinctions, then the legislation moves from sensible to radicalism.

Again i had to downvote your comment for two reasons this time.

1 -- How on earth are you going to sit there and attempt to seriously offer that as a comparison to gay people who campaign to have marriages acknowledged by the church? You're trying to persuade people that it's radicalism by associating it with ritual aniaml sacrifice. I doubt you can even keep a straight face when saying it. It's like going around claiming that winstonfield_pennypacker is a huge fan of adolf hitler's ideals and thinks all jewish people should be slain - see what i did there?

The only vague "vegan" comparison i can make is that you want to be a vegan but your religion requires that you eat pork at 4pm on a sunday in honour of the great almighty vajayjay. So you ask if you can join the local vegan club (.. i'm trying, give me a break) and demand that they let you in even though you eat meat. I mean, fair enough you agree with all their ideals and you don't want to eat meat, but you have no choice in the matter, you're bound by other things.

Your speculations about how gay rights campaigners can slip into radicalism by not defining their demands haven't convinced me at all. At worst it's just matter of forgetfulness or short sightedness. At best it's just a slogan to get the message across quickly - "We demand that you accept gay marriage!" Instead of - "We demand you change the law such that long term gay partners are allowed the same rights and status as straight people!" It's not quite as pithy.

2 -- Plus even if i were (and i weren't) to accept (and i don't) that your speculations prove that gay rights campaigners get radical (they don't) when they demand "gay marriage" in such a loose term, you haven't given any evidence that anyone DID this at all. You've just speculated about "if this happened, it would be radical." So not only would it still not be radical, you haven't even shown that it's happening in such a wide spread manner that you could reasonably say there's radicalism going on.

I'll warn you in advance not to reply with links to gay rights groups with one member each, all demanding that gay people get free visits to the moon, you'll prove yourself to be no better than media outlets who refer to "radical muslim extremist with a hook" for a balanced view of the middle east.

Things such as "gay marriage being accepted by the church" isn't radical, it's just asking for equal treatment.

Simple, basic rulings that say gays can visit relatives in hospitals and such are fine. These things deal with secular rights. I've never met a single person opposed to these kinds of issues. But gay 'marriage' as a concept is inherently tied to the marriage ritual, which is a sectarian ordinance that confers secular benefits. That's where the radicalism enters in...

Human society developed in such a way that Churches are where marriages tend to be performed, while secular laws were passed to promote marriage because the nuclear family unit was beneficial to society. So on the one hand if you want marriage you (as often as not) are going to a religious organization. But when you want the societal benefits of marriage, you are talking about secular rules.

So if you tell the gay community they can get 'married', then they are going to go to churches and demand the sectarian ritual to obtain the secular benefits. But many churches are highly opposed to homosexuality as a moral violation. To ask them to perform such a ritual for a gay couple would be highly offensive - the equivalent of marching into a vegan's house and DEMANDING that they personally butcher a cow and chow down on the resulting BBQ.

So when advocates demand gay marriage and DO NOT account for these distinctions, then the legislation moves from sensible to radicalism. Most gay couples just want the secular benefits. Most religions have no problem with that. But when marriage laws are proposed, they MUST contain concrete language protecting the rights of those who oppose the lifestyle on a sectarian level. Without that language, the proposal is radical because it violates 1st Ammendment protections - no matter how many 'sensible' things it may confer. This is what the bruhaha over Prop-8 was all about.

What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.

It is an issue - and one I appreciate. However - see above. You can't just say, "OK - gay marriage is legal" and ignore the fact that there are thousands of churches who will refuse to perform the ritual, and who happen to have 1st Ammendment rights protecting that stance. Civil unions are the best solution here, even though they are not perfect.

Then you can attempt to tackle the argument of forcing a religion to change its core values

The fact that there are people IN AMERICA saying these kinds of things is why religious groups are so sensitive on the subject. "Forcing a religion to change its core values" is the language of a totalitarian regime, not the USA. I know it's hard to tell with Obama in office, but it's still a free country...

Now I am, KA-CHOW! *beg

Funny, but I couldn't get passed the teeth. The orange looks like a 3 pack a day smoker, and the apple looks like he just chowed down on a bleeding virgin.

The middle one is obviously the smartest. While the other two have their tug-of-war, he just starts chowing down. Upvote for intelligence!

^Nah, semen is hardly a dirty word and it can still easily be milk he chowing down.