I'm calling it preaching because the only comments you have ever made are about cruelty to animals and veganism. It wouldn't be so bad if you had something else to contribute, on ANY other topic, but its always the same. In MY opinion that to me is preaching.

Also there was absolutely nothing in the video about murdering other animals. So no i don't think you're on topic.

It's amusing how cruel people can unwittingly be (on YouTube) making fun of the elderly man being sucked into the sea to die and their misplaced vitriol at the disabled person who is unable to help. It's not so much that an old guy almost died and a crippled person couldn't do anything; it's the the irony in the comments due to people not knowing the truth. Then again, maybe it could also be a skit like the disabled fat guy from Little Britain?

Certainly, it is funny, despite the cruelty in laughing at other people's misery. It could be a gag in an Adam Sandler movie, except the old guy would be Bob Barker and he'd be pulled out to sea and heard cursing as he drifts and blinks out in the sunset. *Plink!*

Everyone would laugh and then Adam Sandler would kiss a blond woman, probably Drew Barrymore, while the sun sets and we do the Looney Tunes fade out, with Porky Pig interrupting with a hand gesture, "A bi-di-a-bi-di-a-bi-di-abi-di-that's all folks!"

@eoe
jesus christ dude..
could you be any more presumptuous?

first off,i didnt call you out specifically.
i rather enjoyed you and newts exchange,but my commentary was not addressing nor interjecting in that conversation.

second,the only argument (if you even want to call it that) that i proposed was to cut the moral absolutes out,because they are bullshit.

now maybe you do not engage in the morality argument that many ..MANY ...vegans DO attempt to utilize to better make their point,and hats off to you if you see the hypocrisy of such a tactic.

now please understand i am not ignoring that there is a morality factor in being a vegan and i totally respect that.what i am stating is to not become burdened with absolutes and attempting to use morality to further a position..or you will be called out on it and rightly so.

thirdly,
your comment is actually a straw man,not mine.
you posit a position i didnt take in order to refute that imaginary position.

which you took a step further by accusing me of not addressing certain aspects of an argument that i only tacitly referred to and in no specific or detailed way.

in fact almost your entire comment towards me is a fabricated argument that i never had with you.

so who are you arguing/debating with?
because i can say with some authority that it is not me.

maybe you took my tone or words as a direct assault on you or what you have written,but as anybody here will attest,i have no problem calling someone out directly.conversely,i have no problem being called out (if my fly is open,please let me know).

so if that is the case,allow me to offer an olive branch:
my girlfriend of many years is a devout vegan.
so i am full aware of the reasons why she became a vegan (at the tender age of seven,no shit) and for her the decision was mostly a moral one i.e:cruelty,abuse etc etc.

when we first started dating she attempted to use every tactic in the book to get me to see the barbarity in my callous and cruel meat eating ways.she would send me videos of the most horrific abuse of animals,slaughterhouse horror stories..i am sure you may be familiar with many of her tactics in attempting to reveal the moral imperative to stop this torture and abuse.

which i responded (much like alluded to in my original comment) by showing her videos of the horrific abuses perpetrated upon human beings just so she could have cheap clothing and those electronic gadgets she loves so much.

which of course made her feel absolute,crushing guilt.almost to the point where it paralyzed her.because she is an adorable sweetheart who genuinely cares for not only people but animals.

which leads me to the main point i was making:
you cannot make a vegan argument based solely on moral absolutes,because it will fall apart within seconds and you come across as a pretentious twat.

so YOU can make the decision to be a vegan based on moral grounds and that is totally acceptable,but you cannot take the moral high ground when debating veganism to further a point,because we ALL bear responsibility in the suffering of others.be they animal or human.

do you see what i am saying?

if you choose to indulge moral absolutes,then you will be exposed as a hypocrite,because when we use absolutes,that metric has to be applied equally to all factors of living.

which leaves us with the "distinctions" and the reason i say those are boring is because it becomes a narcissistic exercise of self-righteous twattery.

i recycle.
i refuse to shop at walmart.
i do not eat fast food.
i only buy organic.
i try to shop local.

all these things i do,not because they actually make a difference,but rather they make me feel better about myself.it gives me the "feel goods".even though i am full aware that in the larger picture,what i am doing means next to nothing.

but it means something to me.
and i think that is really the only real argument a vegan has to rely on to express their viewpoint.

i have seen the videos.
i am aware how awful,cruel and barbaric farming animals can be,but i like bacon.

i am an asshole.

Congratulations! Your video, Rescuing a dog from a life of cruelty, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 11 Badge!

Your video, Rescuing a dog from a life of cruelty, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Three things I have to say, @bobknight33:
1. You're complaining about christianity being attacked. Ok, fine, I'll tell you something: I am tired of your religious beliefs invading my life like an middle eastern dictator a small, oily country. Oh, I have it good, I'm a straight, white middle-european man, I'm fine so far. Others are not. They're tired as well.
I can go on a meth-bender, marry one of the Kardashians in Vegas and annul the whole affair in less than a week. If I win the lottery, I can post on Craigslist and get myself a nice gold-digging whore who'll sign a certificate that makes us husband and wife if I'm willing to trade lackluster blowjobs for money. Best part, it ain 't prostitution if you're married, legally worldwide. Heck, I can even become an abusive piece of shit as long as I can beat her well enough so she won't complain to others.
Because marriage is sanctimonious.
If I was gay and would like to marry the guy of my dreams that I've been with for 20 years, that isn't possible. Because the book doesn't approve.
If my sister got raped, you people would force her to birth the child of her rapist. Her concerns don't matter, life is a holy gift from god. Care to explain to me the position of the catholic church (you know, those christians that make up the majority of christianity) on slavery during centuries slavery? How holy was life in all those european colonies back in the day with all these missionaries teaching the good book? What exactly was their statement as an organisation when millions or people were murdered during the third Reich?
All that silence but when it comes to abortion, you people show up with guns and show the value of this great gift by murdering doctors. Fuck my sisters concerns, right? It just rape, walk it off.
I'm well of, I could join the club as a full member anytime. As long as I'm not calling the cops on the pedophile priests and the self-loathing faggots can stand on their pulpits and tell little children they're broken. I could be among you.
But I have a conscience. I can't buy all that talk about love and forgiveness and ignore all that hatred and cruelty that is in the very basis of your beliefs, that wretched, old bible of yours.
I have to look that man in the mirror in the eyes.
The only way you can impose all that crap on me anymore if through the government. I believe your faith has as much place in there than Tom Cruise's. None.
The Prodigy said it best and I think the people who lived at the time the bible was written would agree: Invaders must die.
Your religion invades my rights as a human being.

2. Did he rise?
Nope, little, brown Jewish got killed. End of facts, begin of story. I don't trust the testimony of men (and I said this before) who consider a walkman witchcraft. People at that time could be convinced that they farted because they swallowed an angry spirit that wants to escape.
You book did a terrible job of explaining how the world came to be (we're golems that had so much incest that they inbred mankind), makes up the worst disastermovies (everything turns to Waterworld but we have a boat with a pair of every animal in existence [imagine all those different kinds of ants alone] and then incest till population is back up) and turns mushroomtrips/mental illness in supposedly accurate future predictions (you know it's the end of the world because none of the riders is called "Incest").
The only reason people buy into the mythology and the extended universe (where's that bible chapter about Satan ruling the Sarlac Pit and Santa being canon again? ) is because for centuries children were taught it at a young age. And then you told them not to question it as heretics get the stake. Ashes yes but not the quick Buffy way.
Don't get me wrong, I like that Jesus fellow and I'm willing to believe his basic message but let's be honest. If J.K. Rowling was born 2000 years earlier, we'd pray to Harry Potter and wear lightning shaped jewelery around our neck. You guys got big because the Roman empire made you relevant. That's it.

3. What's up with '53'? Is that the christian answer to '42'?

I say things like that because they are objectively true. The very concept of omnipotence and omniscience violate all kinds of physical laws. They are paradoxes; the "immovable force meeting the immovable object", but all our experience and learning tells us the universe does not work like that. Again, we might be wrong, but the more we learn, the less likely it becomes that we've missed something so vast.

We haven't missed it, chaosengine; the vast majority of people on Earth believes there is a God.

Human history is full of misery, suffering and cruelty to everything around us. One of the few bright points is our quest for knowledge, and you willfully reject that to cling to a stone age belief system that has been demonstrably proven false (geocentricity, for example) again and again.

In every important way, man hasn't learned anything and hasn't changed at all. The misery and suffering in the world increases year by year, it doesn't decrease.

Factually, it's incorrect.
Morally, it's bankrupt and consistently on the wrong side of history.

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

One day you might wake up and realise (to paraphrase the much missed Douglas Adams) that "the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it".

Until then, you are welcome to indulge in your fantasies, but if you insist on injecting your irrationality into debates like this, expect disagreement.

I've read most of Douglas Adams works. I grew up secular and you would probably be shocked at the level of agreement we would have had in the not too distant past. I have been set free from the bondage of slavery to sin, and have been born again into a living hope. What you know on its own profits you nothing, because without faith it is impossible to please God. Ask God to reveal Himself to you. You don't have to acknowledge it to me, but that is the only way you will ever know anything about God, is by His personal revelation to you. He is faithful to give you a revelation of your need for a Savior.

I say things like that because they are objectively true. The very concept of omnipotence and omniscience violate all kinds of physical laws. They are paradoxes; the "immovable force meeting the immovable object", but all our experience and learning tells us the universe does not work like that. Again, we might be wrong, but the more we learn, the less likely it becomes that we've missed something so vast.

Human history is full of misery, suffering and cruelty to everything around us. One of the few bright points is our quest for knowledge, and you willfully reject that to cling to a stone age belief system that has been demonstrably proven false (geocentricity, for example) again and again.

Factually, it's incorrect.
Morally, it's bankrupt and consistently on the wrong side of history.

One day you might wake up and realise (to paraphrase the much missed Douglas Adams) that "the garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it".

Until then, you are welcome to indulge in your fantasies, but if you insist on injecting your irrationality into debates like this, expect disagreement.

Here is the thing, for it's time, the original Vacation was incredibly crude. Same for European Vacation and so on.

I mean think about it, in the original they were tagged by people in the ghetto, clark was continually trying to flirt and almost cheat on his wife, animal cruelty by tying the dog to the car and driving off, turning the aunt's body to the car and then dropping her off like a UPS package, and it culminated with a terrorist attack by clark on the security guard of wally world.

I hate to break it to you, but if you grew up during that time period, the movie was damn crude and damn funny. This, if it is done correctly is going to be hilarious as well. I figuratively laughed my ass off when I saw the Ferrari driver get creamed.

There will be autonomous or at least semi-autonomous combat robots and there is no stopping it. For one thing, they've already been in use since the early 80's. Cruise missiles are autonomous killer robots. The only difference is that they don't come back when the job is done, but that's a trivial point. More importantly, having a human always in the loop makes current drones massively less effective weapons and giving a potential enemy such a huge opening for that advantage is unwise. You also really can't ban them because they're simply an assembly of extremely useful civilized tools.

That said, she does hit on a very important point though regarding the application of modern drones, which is that they're being used as terror weapons, which we should not be comfortable with. Having drones loiter day in and day out over civilian populated areas is an inexcusable act of cruelty.

It looks like an animal cruelty to me.

I think the comment you were looking for was at the end of the video. She mentions just that in some of her closing text.

It makes me happy that most comments toward her aren't trolling, because when she comments at the beginning (in text) about not wanting negative responses I cringed, knowing that asking for kindness and no cruelty on the internet is the warsong call for Trolls everywhere.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/david-clapson-benefit-sanctions-death-government-policies

The coroner said that when David Clapson died he had no food in his stomach. Clapson’s benefits had been stopped as a result of missing one meeting at the jobcentre. He was diabetic, and without the £71.70 a week from his jobseeker’s allowance he couldn’t afford to eat or put credit on his electricity card to keep the fridge where he kept his insulin working. Three weeks later Clapson died from diabetic ketoacidosis, caused by a severe lack of insulin. A pile of CVs was found next to his body.

I think it's mostly about adrenaline & dopamine highs . It's the same reason some people still manage to "enjoy" rollercoasters or skydiving and the like despite basically being frightened shitless by them.

All depends where your threshold for fear lies. Up to a point your physiology rewards you for what it interprets as taking a worthwhile risk, past that point it punishes you with an unpleasant response. e.g. you might get a good feeling from driving fairly fast, but if you push too far that good feeling turns to blood chilling terror.

The key is that everyone is tuned differently, some people get stressed out walking to the shops, others have to jump off buildings to get any sort of buzz. And naturally further to that we all interpret the level of risk differently in different situations. There appears to be quite the split between how people react to intense physical and cerebral stimuli.

Personally I don't really like being shit up by films like in the above, but then when I feel the back end sliding on a motorbike or drop a light aircraft into a stall I usually end up giggling like a little girl. (within reason)

As I understand it It's an evolutionary thing, we need some people who thrive on risk and go exploring and others to stay alive and raise the kids & naturally all of this is taken wildly out of context by our modern life styles. End result: some people watch scary films to feel alive and others have to race powerboats.

I'm sure there are other more emotional/metaphysical reasons too like our inherent fascinations with mortality, cruelty, paranormal etc. (and anything else we don't relate to in everyday life). But the fear "high" is definitely a big factor I think.

!! Fuck me!

Maybe when faced with the unavoidable cruelty of killing a human being...

...maybe we don't 'double down' and try to get more creative with our process. Maybe we just stop.

Maybe.