I didn't know kids liked Cheetos too, that kid obviously loves them. Maybe my kids would like them. Check out http://www.cheetos.com/ for Cheetos recipes and be sure to read about Cheetos at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetos

Haven't watched the clip but my eye went straight to the FLamin' Hot Cheetos in the thumbnail. Man, I loves me some FLamin' Hot Cheetos. Can't get them in Canada.

EDIT: they might not be Flamin' Hot. I see phantom Flamin' Hots.

>> ^jonny:

dead


Fixed and thanks. Hopefully, this one is unblocked.

LOL @ Cheetos

My kids like spicy Cheetos. I've never forced it on them, but from about 1 year old I've let them eat them if they wanted. And they do.

I try not to let them have too much because I know they aren't aware of the spicy poop consequences and I don't want them to suffer later because they can't understand what is causing it.

Also, I want one of those little monkeys, so I can dress him in a little tuxedo and make him wear a top hat and bring me beers while I eat cheetos and watch TV.

No, you don't see Jesus on your receipt, toast, cheese sandwich, cheetos, or tortilla; you see a face (at best). You can't say it looks like Jesus because nobody really knows what Jesus looked like.

@GeeSussFreeK, I think you just need to think about it more. It's not really that hard to realize that there's no harm really being done to straight people when gays get married, and that there's a pretty serious harm being done to gay people in denying them the ability to marry who they want.

Maybe the thought grosses out some straight people, but nothing is actually being done to them at all, while denying gay people equal legal status involves depriving them of something very important.

I do think developing nuclear bombs was done without any real attempt to think about the moral consequences of creating such a weapon. Given that they exist, it seems to me that a lot of things are justifiable in the name of keeping them from being used, considering how harmful they could be. That just makes me dislike them all the more.

I'm not sure why you'd ever be off the hook (morally speaking) from looking at the consequences of your actions. If cheetos and soda are made with slave labor, or are made via a process that's killing the environment, maybe it's not moral for you to buy them.

As for this:

Even if consequentialism were a valid moral dogma, it fails to be readily applied in beings that are mortal and can only factor in very very limited scopes.

This is as good an explanation as any for why liberals tend not to be particularly judgmental about people, unless their actions can clearly be seen as causing harm.

I don't really blame people for buying tube socks at Walmart, even though it's essentially just fueling modern-day slavery. I do think people should, if they want to be a better person, pay closer attention to that kind of stuff, but I don't blame them for not investing the time and energy to know. I'd rather we just do better about making slavery illegal, or at least set up trade agreements so we refuse to import goods from countries with labor conditions below a certain minimum level...

I can understand why you're tempted to reject the idea out of hand -- it's hard to suddenly realize that you probably should spend more time thinking about the ways in which your actions might harm others, rather than telling yourself you have a right to cause all the harm you want, as long as you follow a couple simple rules.

I don't really care if you adopt it as your own moral guide, but if you're interested in understanding the moral reasoning behind most left-wing people, it's essentially the underlying mechanic we use for judging what's right and wrong, and should help you understand why liberals come to different conclusions about moral questions than you.

@NetRunner

Actually, it is completely subjective to say "the suffering caused by denying marriage to gay people outweighs the discomfort you feel when you see them get married". You simply can not compare two different sets of feeling from 2 different frames of reference. Who are you to say that someones suffering isn't at great as someone else's, you have the burden of proof, and it is completely subjective. It is important to understand what I mean by subjective. It might be objective that someone is feeling a feeling; that a person is feeling something and that experience is real. But as to the depth of the feeling, it is immeasurable because it is contained entierly in the mind of the feeler. It pertains only to the individual.

You are making a HUGE claim next, that ALL actions need to be justified in the greater scope of humanity. Which also have the flaw scope being very near sided. The advancement of technology that developed the atom bomb would be a moral hazard to all scientists that helps science make it, or technologies that help make technologies that made it, or people that helped people make those technologies that made those technologies that made those technologies. In other words, the morality of consequence is failing to take in relevant information because it can't possibly obtain relevant information about long sweeping events.

Me eating cheetos and having a soda would also not be justifiable under this moral situation. How can I know the long term ramifications of such an event? Every seemingly mundane events in life can have profound effects. It is an intractable position. Even if consequentialism were a valid moral dogma, it fails to be readily applied in beings that are mortal and can only factor in very very limited scopes.

Consequentialism would be a good description of it I guess, though. As such, I find the terms all redundant. You don't need 5 terms to talk about 1 basic idea. Progressive doesn't tell us anything more than liberal or even more rootly, consequentialism.

In that, I have considered consequentialism in my recent inquiring. I have subsequently rejected it on it being based in "things that feel good" is very poor justification. I would have to be convinced that happiness is the one, most important aspect of reality.

Thanks for the lengthy replies .

Hebrew National Hotdogs, served as Denial Dogs
Unicorn Sandwiches
Dinosaur Saddles
Dove Bars
Cross shaped Cheetos (Sold as Cheesus)
Spaghetti Monster Entrees
Holy Watering Cans
Edible Fig leaves
Spare Ribs
Sinful Apples
Snake Whips

I want in.
>> ^probie:

I want in on this so bad. Just imagine:
Themed breakfasts $69.95/person - only $10 more if you want an image of our lord and saviour burned into your toast
Wafers and ham - $22.95 - succulent pieces of our host, served with deviled ham spread.
Holy bottled water - $13.50

pretty cool, but it sounds like his nervousness is going to explode in a glorious oral outpouring of cheetos and mountain dew.

Daym, you got me on one count at least. Yes, I admit to being at the Computer, of that I think we share somnething in common. As for Cheeto fingers, sadly they are not sold here, although I could probably find the equivalent brand here if it would make your argument anymore valid.

Its not about knowing how to deal with a deaf person, its about knowing what not to do, and I think pretty high on that list is putting them in a chokehold.

@Jinx Wow that's so the same. Because this was a normal scenario that happens every day. You know what does happen every day? People walking out of stores with stolen shit. Happens EVERY SINGLE MUNDANE day. And these people are used to it. Were they excessive after it was quite obvious he was deaf? Yea. Unreasonable excessive force after the fact. But how do you tell a squirming, confused deaf guy that's fighting for his life to please get up and come with you to your office to sort things out? Do YOU have any ideas that are practical and can be used in the heat of the battle? No, you're at your computer with Cheeto fingers.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Tymbrwulf.

Also fresh vegetable are more expensive, have a shorter shelf life, usually have to be prepared, and kids are less likely to want to eat them. Not that any of that excuses feeding your kids junk, but those are some of the bigger reasons than marketing.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I'm sure these kids could easily differentiate between Cheetos and Doritos, Skittles and M&Ms or Coke and Sprite. It's disturbing to see the kinds of foods that are marketed to kids these days, and even more disturbing to see parents fall prey to this marketing.