"Evil" is a moral judgement that is a personal opinion. To say she's not "evil" is meaningless, because it all depends on what you think is evil, and there's clearly no consensus about that.

What she's clearly not for most people is trustworthy. Time and time again she's demonstrated that to the satisfaction of well over 1/2 the American people (at least according to all polls done on the subject). No matter what your personal opinion is about her or how wrong you might think those detractors are, that they say they think that is a fact, and that makes the election a coin toss...and unfortunately the Republicans supply the coin (because they make the voting machines).

In my mind, if I can't trust a person, it doesn't matter a whit what they say they'll do, because I can't believe they mean it or will follow through. I feel that way about both Clinton and Trump, but to differing degrees. I think they both have put their own interests above those of the country, and will do so again.

Wow. You really are speaking with authority on a subject you are ignorant about, aren't you? Look up Masai, or Inuit. Both survive on a meat only (or almost only) diet out of necessity. So much for "nobody on this planet is currently in that situation, probably never will" [be].

You are not superior. You are narcissistic. It seems that's a side effect of being vegan...you ALL have this false sense of superiority. That alone is enough reason to keep eating meat.

When people have no sense of humor about their own ideals, it's proof positive that they are insecure in them.

Vegans are not diverse when it comes to doing their little superior dance. They all do it, then all go pat themselves on the back for being a vegan douche to some 'evil carnivore' (by which they mean omnivore).

BTW, chimps are OMNIVORE, not carnivore....you know, that THIRD category of eaters that nearly all animals fall into, but which vegans choose to ignore.

BS, vegans are like ex addicts, always trying to make their bean curd taste and feel like meat. They fail miserably, but they continue to try and try....because meat tastes good and they miss it. You find the THOUGHT of meat revolting, but you still LOVE the taste.

Having to "clean up" your racist mindset is not what they mean by "ethnic cleansing "...

Nope....and to a small degree, yep.
Actually, we are a constitutional representative democracy or constitutional democratic republic (they mean the same thing)....

If you want the most technical term, our country is a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic.
In our form of government, the constitution limits the power of government. We elect representatives, so it's not a pure democracy. But we do elect them by majority rule so it is democratic.
To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy.
But there is no basis for saying that the United States is somehow “not a democracy, but a republic.” “Democracy” and “republic” aren’t just words that a speaker can arbitrarily define to mean something (e.g., defining democracy as “a form of government in which all laws are made directly by the people”). They are terms that have been given meaning by English speakers more broadly. And both today and in the Framing era, “democracy” has been generally understood to include representative democracy as well as direct democracy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/

Or for that matter, a unit of width (as I assume they mean by "across").

I'll point out that they list the "Artic". I assume they mean the "Arctic".

Not that I think shooting into the air for minor reasons is a *good* idea, but the chances of it being dangerous to the point of killing (or even injuring) someone are really really low. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire

First of all, even in a densely populated city, the ratio of square meters of human-occupied space to unoccupied space is really low. So, you gotta be quite unlucky to have a bullet fired up land on a human instead of house / dirt / concrete / whatever.

Second, when the bullet comes down it won't be traveling at its muzzle velocity, but at its terminal falling velocity. Mythbusters did a test on that, as have various other sources, and most find that a bullet falling at terminal velocity isn't fast enough to kill unless you're outstandingly unlucky. Deaths have been recorded, but at a lower rate than, say, Hippos, pulling a Carradine, or having an icicle fall on your head.


I guess it is sorta like hailstones, which could potentially have relatively comparable mass, aerodynamic properties, and terminal velocities as bullets in some cases. I've been caught in a hailstorm before, and while it was enough to sting and be rather painful, it wasn't near strong enough to break the skin.


So, given all of that, IF it came down to a situation where a policeman has to show a dangerous assailant that they mean business and are willing to fire their weapon to resolve it, firing straight up into the air might potentially be a good way to accomplish that without immediately shooting to kill / injure the assailant. In some scenarios, possibly. NOT that a stopped car trying to dump drugs (via balloon or whatever else) is an example of such a scenario.

There MUST be a miswording there, or bold faced, outright lie.
As temperatures rise, frozen underwater methane (methyl hydrate)is melted and RELEASED, not trapped. Not only that, as the ice on land disappears, it exposes permafrost that, as it melts, also emits methane. It's been happening for a while now, and is accelerating. Methane is FAR more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2, for longer times, so once this cycle takes off, we can expect exponential increase in the temperature rise.
It's POSITIVE feedback loop, not a negative one.
EDIT: Perhaps they mean when the Atlantic currents are disrupted and the lower ocean becomes colder...at that point it will have the ability to store more methane, but not the ability to capture it from the atmosphere since the upper ocean will be far warmer.
As for your misunderstanding of CO2, removing all CO2 production tomorrow won't remove any in the atmosphere, it will be there for quite some time before it could be absorbed in the ocean/forests, and that time period extends daily as the ocean becomes more acidic (making it impossible for diatoms to use the CO2 to make their shells) and the forests are removed. Once the ocean stops absorbing CO2, even the amount naturally created will be far too much for the atmosphere, and temps/CO2 levels will still rise even if we produce absolutely none. The tipping point was in the 70s-80s when we could have stopped CO2 production and made a difference. Now, it's too late unless we find a way to trap CO2 and keep it trapped. The systems are quite slow to react.
As for people "thriving", that's just ridiculous. There's been a food shortage world wide for quite some time now. The water shortage is becoming a bigger threat, and that's expected to increase exponentially as glaciers, snow packs, and aquifers rapidly disappear. Ocean harvests have drastically decreased, as have natural foods. We are thriving in the same way locusts 'thrive' when they swarm...but note that 99.9% of them die of starvation in the end.

I'm confused....are you saying you feel if they THINK you have a gun, they can punt you in the face and break your jaw even if you are complying with their orders? Because he WAS complying with their orders and getting on the ground when he was kicked in the face, and cops can always say they THINK you had a gun, then act violently with impunity.
The radio repeatedly said the man with the gun has a yellow shirt and a hat, this guy has a white shirt and yellow hat, so he doesn't fit the multiple clear descriptions. Why would they think 'the dude had a gun'?
I also note, that was the SECOND time that officer kicked him, the first time was as he tells him for the first time to 'get on the ground' while kicking the suspects legs while the suspect is complying with the original 'get your hands up' command.

Also, they lied about the suspect and falsely charged him with multiple crimes, as noted here....
"The incident occurred at a gas station on U.S. 13. Lateef Dickerson, 30, of Dover, was originally charged with assault, theft and resisting arrest, but those charges later were dropped." Surprise, he apparently also did not have a gun at all!

On top of that, this is the official police statement where they are saying the officer did nothing wrong...
"As the man was in the process of getting on the ground he was kicked in the head once by Webster rendering him unconscious." I can't fathom how they think that's OK, they admit he was complying but kicked him in the face anyway, but that is their position.

They also said "that his actions regarding this incident were outside of Dover Police Department policy and acted accordingly," which seems to mean we know he didn't follow guidelines, and that's just fine (I don't know what else 'acted accordingly' could mean in this case). If they mean to say the department 'acted accordingly', it should be noted that their only reported actions were to give him a paid vacation and a pat on the back.

Well, even if you did say they were toxic I'd have agreed with you, like others here have said any reasonable comments made would have been buried under a metric fuckton of bullshit anyhow.

I think there is a misunderstanding here however, when GenjiKilpatrick and others are talking about Sarkeesian "being called on her shit" they mean the reasoned criticism, not the threats, nobody here is arguing in favor of that.
I am curious though, unless you know something about these threats that I don't, how do you know that they are in fact "Serious"? Most people can dream up all kinds of crazy shit or even talk about it, but that still doesn't put you into Dexter Morgan territory (Dexter would be too polite to say anything like that anyhow, and Sarkeesian doesn't fit Harry's Code).
If you are referring to the UCU lecture that she cancelled, then no, neither campus security nor the FBI advised her against going through with the appearance, she made that choice on her own.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58528113-78/sarkeesian-threats-threat-usu.html.csp

You also say "It's unseemly to imply a single woman should ignore such threats or assume they are not credible", which makes me wonder if this was a man we were talking about would you still feel the same way? Adam Orth received death threats to both himself and his family and while it did create a lot of discussion, even heated discussion, it did not generate the same kind of mass outrage that this has so far. Gabe Newell also got a threat from a developer some time back and that got barely a peep out of anyone.
Simply put, we still live in a society that puts on a good public show of equality for men and women, but privately we still teach our little boys that men are still the true protectors of our society. We don't get as upset when men face danger because that is what we expect of them, and this kind of deeply embedded cultural belief is the real heart of sexism in our society. This debate over the role of women in video games is all superficial because I believe it comes from those much older beliefs.

You can always tell when a video is idiotic when the youtube version has turned off comments.

This is a classic tautological argument. How do we know these are the only constants that allow for life? Do we have another universe to compare it against? If they mean Earth life, then even dumber.

Now I'm starting to think you just want to argue. If you're smart enough to make those technical assertions, you're smart enough to know that's not what the experiment was about, and that you're just adding data to confuse the lesson.
The experiment is about the effect of gravity on the moving objects under 2 conditions, and how their mass means nothing when determining THEIR accelerations/speeds in a vacuum. Period.
You want to introduce other, completely unobservable (and irrelevant to the lesson) forces and movements to say 'nope'. Technically, you may be correct in a way, but you must completely ignore the purpose and parameters of the experiment and assume inobservably small movements to make your point...a point that does not actually change the experimental findings or the lesson, but does confuse it thoroughly.

EDIT: I would note that, by your standards, exactly where the observer is positioned makes MORE difference than the different masses of the bowling ball and feather, as do the exact positions of the two...if dropped from exactly the same position, they hit at exactly the same time because their gravitational forces are in line.

I would also note that if you change it to say, unimpeded, they would cross any imaginary line in space at the same time (essentially what they mean), again your point becomes moot.

Speaking for myself I would say that I don't really agree with her assertion that mass media in general or video games in particular are the primary driving force behind sexism, misogyny or violence against women in the real world. I don't think there's ever been a conclusive study that makes that connection and much of this is basically the violence in video games causes real violence, only repackaged with a feminist twist. In her latest video she states that violence against women in games trivializes the violence that happens to women in real life, but then says nothing about it trivializing violence against anyone else (I guess men just don't matter as much as women). She accuses the industry of using women as little more than set pieces but then fails to acknowledge that many of her examples are NPCs, who are by definition set pieces and that goes for both men and women. She basically shows us a bunch of clips from various games and pulls them completely out of context and writes her own narrative for them. So, show everyone a bunch of shocking images and tell them what they mean, and hope everyone just takes your word for it and doesn't think too hard about it.