My dearest Eric aka @eric3579!
Congratulations! I'm so happy for you!
You can finally cross another thing off the bucket list!

Thank you for all the support you've given me over the years, and it's a pleasure to be able to call you my friend!

Not surprised they're actual cut potatoes at all. Now if you told me Burger King or Jack in the Box's fries were real I'd slap you across the face and call you a liar. Granted it's been a long time since I've had either so they could have conceivably changed them. IMO McDonald's fries are fresh and made right they're some of the best, when they're not they're some of the worst.

There are millions of people all over the world who do this very thing all the time. It's a myth perpetuated by TV shows like "the biggest loser".

What's the purpose of the video? Generating ad revenue for Vox. They're a business after all. But secondary to that, I think the purpose of the video is simply to educate people about the importance of nutrition in weight loss. You would be amazed at the number of people who don't understand it.

I don't think you could really call it clickbait (other than the fact that everything is clickbait, so the term becomes meaningless). In fact, it's almost the opposite of clickbait... the main point is given away in the title. It's not like it was called "you won't believe this one amazing weight loss method" or some shit.

Yeah, sign me up for the "this looks awful" train.

Right now, there is one thing that might make me want to see this and that's the fact that Simon Pegg wrote it.

Because Simon Pegg is awesome and he actually cares about this.

But I can picture the scene now...

INT: PARAMOUNT EXEC's office
SIMON PEGG: "I've just finished the screenplay for the new Star Trek movie"
PARAMOUNT EXEC flicks through script, obviously not reading it

PARAMOUNT EXEC: "Great.. great! great work, Si (can I call you Si?) Now can we add some ninjas and dirt bikes?"

SIMON PEGG: "er, that's not really what it's about. And please don't call me Si."

PARAMOUNT EXEC: "Thanks Si! So we'll have those ninjas and dirt bikes in the next draft. Also good news, you'll never guess who we got to direct it."

SIMON PEGG: "I was thinking maybe Duncan Jones. He did some great sci-fi with Moon."

PARAMOUNT EXEC: "nah, he's off making an extended blizzard cgi sequence! No, even better, we got Justin Lin!"

SIMON PEGG: "The guy from Fast & Furious? Why? why would you...."

SIMON PEGG breaks down crying

PARAMOUNT EXEC laughs maniacally

CUT TO : Ext GENE RODDENBERRY's grave

GENE RODDENBERRYs corpse spins out of grave

You can dance all you like, but you are still hypocritical. A war plane was never designed as anything other than a device to KILL. A hammer might have been used to kill, but it was not designed for it.

So, I am not trying to say you are less moral, I am just trying to get you to SEE that you are just as capable of making distinctions regarding your values as we are. We are all the sum of our parts, we choose moral stances and we choose to avoid others we consider to be less necessary. In choosing to follow the vegan dogma, you unfortunately have put yourself in a lifestyle that usually carries at least a thin veneer of "I am better than you", when in fact you have merely chosen to restrict your diet. It doesn't make you any better or worse than someone who chooses to quit smoking, or perhaps to only ride public transportation.

As far as winning, I have no intention of winning because this is an unwinnable discussion. I will neither be able to persuade you that you are being selectively moral and elitist, nor will you be able to persuade me that mankind should cease to partake in the flesh of other creatures (if we choose to). The most I can do is call you on your comments, you can take or leave my opinions the same way I would do yours.

I won't resort to a catchphrase like bacon, but the end result is the same, futile as you said.

I used to be a vegetarian, longer than I have been vegan, for nearly 10 years, because I was under the wrong impression of needing protein from eggs, milk and cheese to live healthy.

I came to the conclusion that as a vegetarian I'm still contributing to needless animal suffering, because it turns out that the dairy and egg industries are the two cruelest businesses out of all of them, and even then they are closely tied to meat production.

Male chicks being thrown by the bucket load into blenders and grinders because they are no use. The egg laying hens in the dark to save electricity costs, inside cages where they cannot move, or have fencing for a floor. Wings clipped, beaks chopped or burnt off. When they stop laying or collapse from exhaustion they get killed for meat anyway.

It's the same for the dairy industry, horns cut or burnt off, if they're born male they get turned into veal. Female cows constantly impregnanted to force milk production until they stop or collapse, then get turned into meat anyway.


I don't think I've called anyone a murderer, torturer or rapist. But people seem to love telling me that I do.

If anything I would be calling you an accomplice, since I doubt you are the one doing it. I wouldn't be doing it to make myself feel better, I'd be doing it because it's true. You're paying someone else to torture, and kill totally unnecessarily - There is no reason to eat any animal product for the majority of people on this planet.

I've put this out there in the past, and it still counts - if anyone can give me one good logical reason to eat any animal product, I'll eat a raw bloody steak on youtube.

"Doing these things as a prelude to proselytizing means they aren't altruistic..."

Altruism isn't the right word. When people help others to their hurt, that is called agape love, a word the Christian community has owned for 2000 years. You're right of course, that more than a few churches out there are always trying to figure out how to get more members, more money etc. But that isn't all the churches, or even nearly so. For instance the churches in this community dont care who goes where; they all work together and no one is taking the credit for it. This is just one counter example to the broad brush strokes you're painting here.

I think you need a little more nuance here too, newtboy; for instance, would you say it is wrong for atheists to do good deeds in the name of atheism? Or, for the red cross to air commercials showing their accomplishments so they could raise more money to expand their mission in the world?

"And yet, here you are calling attention to yourself (and them), so you proved your statement wrong by stating it publicly. Oops! ;-)"

I didn't mention what I do newtboy, but I have no problem calling attention to the righteous who glorify God through their lives.

"Churches are for profit institutions.."

The church according to the bible is a non-profit organization. Whether churches in America reflect that or not is another question entirely. I know for my church, and almost any other church, you can request to see how the church spends its money year by year. None of the churches I have dealings with are making "profits"

"Once again I would ask, why do you question your god's clear wish that I (and others) not believe in him..."

Jesus Christ died for our sins, yours and mine. God already demonstrated His love for us while we were sinners, now the only question is, will you reciprocate? The insanity of the question posed to Stephan Fry, ie what would you say to God, is exposed by the answer "How dare you!" by Stephan. It seems that people believe God is a man who needs to explain Himself, who has something to hide. Yet, Stephan and every other human being have a lot to hide; the brutal and ugly truth of how we have all lived our lives here.

It's easy for a man to say to people who know nothing about him that he will shake his fist at God when they meet. Yet, what will he do when all of his lawless deeds are exposed and the secrets he has kept from everyone are brought to light? All the fight will go out of him immediately, this I guarantee you. Yet, this in itself is still ridiculous, considering that even merely being in Gods presence is enough to make the most hardened sinner fall to his knees and weep uncontrollably. But people won't be weeping because God loves them on that day, they will be weeping and gnashing their teeth after being confronted by the fact that they have missed the boat for eternity.

"Shirley.."

My name isn't Sherlock..

"Doing 100 good deeds and one incredibly evil deed makes one evil. No church in history has ever reached that level of goodness. Churches are evil. I hope that clears things up."

I'm glad you understand what I have been trying to explain to the sift for years; a relative goodness is no goodness at all. If you set fire to someones home, and then built 27 orphanages, would people call you good? Why is it then that people think that all of our good deeds should cause God to forgive us for a single sin? This is the reason Jesus died for us, because we can't earn Gods forgiveness and our good deeds can't erase our bad ones. Could you ever go to court and say "your honor, although I commited this crime I have done over 1000 hours of community service in my lifetime, so please dismiss the case; will that ever happen? That wouldn't be justice, and if God threw out our case without true justice, He wouldn't be a just judge.

What would I say about churches who have done evil? These are institutions; the true church is the body of Christ, of which every born again believer is a member of. That is what is happening in my community, is that no one cares about the institution of the church; they are just being the church. The reward is simply this, to serve God honorably by living a sacrificial life predicated on sacrificial love.

Doing these things as a prelude to proselytizing means they aren't altruistic, they are a part of the indoctrination process. If your church does all these things without ever mentioning religion, asking for donations, or asking for those helped to volunteer, it is incredibly abnormal.

"You dont get to see those kinds of Christians because they don't call attention to themselves"
And yet, here you are calling attention to yourself (and them), so you proved your statement wrong by stating it publicly. Oops! ;-)

Churches are for profit institutions, why shouldn't they pay taxes? The Catholic church is a haven for pedophiles, why have it's assets not been seized under RICO statutes? Many other for profit companies donate food, shelter, and services, yet they also pay their share for the public services they enjoy. Why should it be different for an organization who's product is intangible and invisible?

There won't be an effort to exterminate Christians, there may well be an effort to exterminate Christianity, along with all other divisive religions. I hope I'm around to see it.

Once again I would ask, why do you question your god's clear wish that I (and others) not believe in him? Shirley, you don't think you know better than he/she, right? (that's right, I called you Shirley.) ;-)

Doing 100 good deeds and one incredibly evil deed makes one evil. No church in history has ever reached that level of goodness. Churches are evil. I hope that clears things up.

Oh yeah, I forgot, it was a while ago on another thread, but that still doesn't answer why you think being one precludes being the other. ;-)
EDIT: I hope you notice that I didn't actually CALL you either a pig or Palin, I simply asked if you were either (or both). ;-)

1)all we have are test results showing how they failed multiple tests of it's required capabilities, and other reports saying the military changed the test requirements after the fact to turn those 'fails' into 'barely passed the tests'.
2) mostly, yes. Not 100%. For the most part, the general media does not have a real understanding of anything they 'report'.
3) I'm making claims about it becoming obsolete in <10 years, not repeating any media claim, based on past lifespans of electronic secrets. It's more prone to obsolesce than previous planes because it's main, and really only 'claim to fame' (as you've repeatedly said) are it's electronics, both stealth and targeting, and when those are 'gone' it's a flying golden pig. I think giving it 10 years is really being quite generous, secrets rarely last that long these days.

Um...who called you a pig? The voices in your head? Certainly not me. I don't know why you would say you can't be both though. That's just silly. ;-)


That's a pretty big 'If it can' that's already been proven to be an 'it can't'. Even IF it did everything it was supposed to, yes, it's 10 years too late and at least double an acceptable price tag, and still not ready for prime time, or even the 2am slot.
Yes, modification happens, but the idea is not to produce something that needs to be modified out of the box in order to do anything well.
No, many bombers are in use that were designed as bombers. Sorry, but that's just wrong.
Once again, the idea of the F-35 doesn't grant air superiority, neither does a few of these planes, especially if we are too afraid to lose a $200+ million plane so we just don't use them, which is the most likely outcome. It is in NO way a deterrent to full scale war with any foe we might ever use it against, like Russia. If it was some magic anti-war bullet, that might be money well spent, but is simply isn't in any way and NEVER will be, so that argument is just silly.
In 10 years, the stealth properties of this plane will be 5 years past obsolete....and it may STILL not be in the air.
There are no countries with air forces that can come close to ours, not one. I don't think there's even a group of 10 nations combined that come close to ours. We will NEVER be in a fair fight excepting a nuclear one where every one dies, and we'll still out nuke everyone else 10-1, it just won't matter.
Yes, Trump likely would take us to war, that's no reason to waste more money on unneeded weapons for a possible, unknown, unlikely future conflict with an unknown, unestimated enemy.
Still testing....and still testing....and still testing....$1.3 TRILLION later.....Still testing (and failing those tests)....still testing...still testing. Eventually it should be admitted that it's a failure, more testing won't help (it hasn't yet), and quit throwing mountains of good money after bad.
No, it doesn't. It's TASKED with all the same stuff the aging, multi types of planes do, but it can't do it. Stealth is not something new, BTW, we have many stealth planes already, better ones that work.
Again, out of the box needing to be upgraded is a fail. A massive, indisputable fail. That an engine powerful enough to move this pig like other planes already can doesn't exist should tell you something. It's aerodynamic....great....that's one part of a dozen that have to fit together.
The price tag is multiplied 10 fold because it has a pilot.
You want them to eventually pass ALL required tests...not fail them all, then change the parameters so it isn't canceled.
Nope...Warthog.
Not so far. So far, other stealth planes do what it's supposed to...better. Upgrading them is clearly a better plan.
Not true. All I hear is 'it sucks' because I don't read Lockheed Martin's press releases. When you look at test results, it sucks. When you look at price, it sucks. When you look at upkeep, it sucks ass. When you look at a fleet of them doing everything a dozen different planes today do, we're bankrupt and far less capable militarily, and that sucks.

But it seems no amount of logic and results will dissuade you from your love of this unmitigated debacle. That's your choice, but you aren't convincing anyone else to go along with you.

@Imagoamin

whoa whoa whoa...
did you think i was calling YOU a bed-wetter?
like as in actually using the pronoun "you" to direct my fictional interaction as representing an actual person,in this case YOU?

well,that certainly explains the tone of your reply.

if this is the case then i humbly and sincerely apologize.i was not referring to you at all,but rather a hypothetical and totally fictional interaction between a cry-baby and myself.

which you actually just made my point about humor,and in this case sarcastic humor.an over the top referencing of a certain hyper-sensitive group,in order to make my point about bad ideas,bad philosophy and poor judgment.

the sarcasm should have been obvious.
but alas...it appears it was not,and has been misconstrued as a personal attack.

moving on to your suey park rebuttal.
while the response to her initial call for justice can easily be seen as vile and grotesque (because it is) how does that take away from her inanity? her blatant disregard for nuance and context? or that she simply lacks the basic intelligence to discern satire from actual racist remarks?

it does not.

i think that most people would agree that the vile,disgusting and dehumanizing responses that suey park was subjected to,are to be condemned and yes...ridiculed..for the stupid and trollish behavior they represent.

you do not reply to stupid with even more stupid.

i dont really understand your defense of language,or better put,the imposing of certain words being stricken from the language altogether because some people find them offensive.

language is a fluid animal,and it is ever-changing.words and terms are dropped from the vocabulary or they morph into something altogether new.i have no skin in on the game in that regard.that is how language progresses,and yes,certain words can be offensive in certain contexts.so we should avoid using them,if only to be a decent human being.

my issue is with the FORCED attempts to re-integrate new words.to control what people say and attempt to bring real world consequences upon them,and then turn around and call it "justice".that is not justice! that is censorship!

maybe this will help a bit.
i view words and language as such:words are the means to express thoughts,feelings and imaginings.when we consider the complexity of our thoughts,feelings and imaginings then it becomes quite apparent that words will NEVER suffice to truly,and accurately,express those very human creations.

words will always be inadequate.

so when some people get it in their head that certain words are just too offensive to even utter.this narrows the field of expression that is already inadequate.(i am not talking about BLATANT,and archaic terms that are not only offensive,but are no longer relevant,and in existence still to simply disparage,insult or dehumanize).

now maybe some words no longer serve a valid purpose or are truly offensive and need to be re-examined,but the only way to reach that conclusion as a people..we must actually TALK to one another,and it is in this free market of ideas where bad ideas go to die.

but we have to able to conversate for that to happen.don't you agree?

now i am not going to bother addressing the rest of your comment,because your tone was just a reaction to where you presumed i was coming from.

and you did presume.

you seem like a decent sort,so i will just chalk your final response up to finding my comment offensive and replied in kind.

just know i wasnt heated,nor enraged.
and i certainly wasnt calling you a bed-wetter.
though the extreme end of social justice warriors are STILL humorless cunts.

@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.

@Lawdeedaw

No.

Muslim is the only religion who tenents is to force you to convert, if not then extort money from you if not then kill you.

Christians would just call you sinners and go about their day.

People will still call you a liberal or conservative, whatever.
When you get your information like that you will have many different opinions that dont fit one side. People will attack you even more, since youre now in the middle, between the extremists. Even if youre on their side on some things, they will still attack you because you dont go the whole way. On the other hand people from the other side will attack you because you have a trait of their "enemy" on one topic, so you must be a full blown "other sideling".
But people want to be accepted by the society, so they most of the time decide for one side. Thats why the world is getting more black and white and reason is becoming extinct.

Ha, i wondered if calling you English might get me in a bind. All i had was the UK to identify your geographic location from and i went with the best guess. So American of me... yall the same to me