The best evidence you have for your claims (as I see it) is anecdotal at best.
3rd world countries 1) are not at all vegetarian and 2) don't get most cancers Westerners do largely because they don't eat processed foods or expose themselves to carcinogenic chemicals constantly....we do.
Again, NEVER get your science from the internet.

"Pro-life" is by definition "anti-choice".

If you're really pro-planet, a MUCH better way to go about it is try to get people to have fewer children. That will make exponentially more difference than some people eating fewer animals. In fact, if past human behavior is a guide, if we all stop eating animals, animals will cease to exist for the most part, so that's not helpful to them at all.

Again, fewer people is the proper answer, not forcefully change biologically engrained behavior. I made that choice, so I can eat all the animals I ever possibly can and I've done more for the planet and it's animals with that single action than 1000 vegans with vegan children...or more positive difference than one vegan with children, depending on how you want to look at it.

As a living being, I'm standing up for all living beings who certainly object to your choice to breed, both the voiceless and those with voice, and saying stop making choices that negatively impact us all, like having more children and grandchildren. If enough people would do that, eating meat won't be an ecological issue. ;-)

I didn't watch the videos, I don't get my science from the internet. I read scientific publications that contain peer reviewed science papers, and I've never seen one that said ALL the nutrients found in meat could be replaced with vegetable nutrients easily, simply, viably, or without excessive expense.
Also, it ignores that fact that most produce available in the first world comes with a huge carbon footprint and massive ecological damage because of the production methods, so it's not the 'clean' trade off you seem to assume.

Small family farms were plenty to meet demand for all of human history until about the last 50 years. Quit having kids, and it will be enough again and we can stop abusing animals and the eco system just to make enough food for humans.

A short, good life is preferable to no life at all.

Nope. I should have scheduled the one in that picture that's mine to end his life at least a year earlier, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. NOT doing it was immoral. If someone had been willing to eat him, I would be all for it. If someone wants to eat me, go for it...I suggest slow smoking and a molasses based BBQ sauce. Eating my dog would be ecologically sound, as opposed to the cremation we ended up with, or burial, being the only other option available.
If I raised dogs for food, I would not think twice about ending their life in their prime. That would be the reason they existed in the first place, and without that reason they would never get that chance.

Again, milk cows only exist because someone wanted to partner with them to benefit both. Without that symbiosis, they would not get the opportunity to exist at all. IMO, existence is preferable to no existence. Yes, they need to get pregnant at least once, but as I understand it, that's it so long as you keep up with milking them. Veal, now there I'll totally agree with you that IT'S abuse.

Animals are not people. They do not usually have the same need for freedom, and those that do have that need were never domesticated. It is not immoral to form a symbiosis with another species as long as you both benefit in some way, otherwise you're just a parasite.

? Taste, as in how animals taste? BS, that's not all. That's a component, sure, but there's incredibly more to it than that.

I prefer to give animals a reason to exist, knowing that without that human centric reason, they simply won't get the chance, but I do my best to purchase animal products that are created with the least distress and best conditions for the animals in question...granted that's not always possible to know.

Trust me, I've tried vegetarian 'meats', I know the difference, and absolutely don't prefer vegan fare, or vegetarian fare that attempts to emulate meat. If I want meat, I'll eat meat. You'll get my butter only by prying it from my cold, dead hands. ;-)

I don't think taste is quite as simple as you imply. Yes, there is a component of 'addiction' to certain foods, especially sugar rich foods.
There's no such thing as vegan cheese or chocolate, you mean tofu and carob...and I agree, they both suck.

Sorry, that's simply wrong. A poor eating vegan can certainly negatively impact the planet with their food choices. It's easy. Oreos for instance, are most certainly made with ecologically damaging factory farm methods creating the ingredients...well, those methods and chemists. I don't know off hand the carbon footprint and ecological impact of an oreo, but it's not "none".

It makes sense that we would process plants somewhat better than meat, as meat in a survival situation is hard to come by compared to vegetation. However, it cannot be denied that we evolved as omnivores and still are such barring a personal choice.

A plant based diet may be more healthy for you, I don't care to argue the science of it. I would note that science, at least in regards to our diets, continually changes. I went through multiple phases of science saying that a certain substance (alcohol, chocolate, eggs, butter, etc) was bad, only to reverse the decision as time went on and further studies were done. I don't say that as an excuse or to deny which diet is best, simply that we have a long way to go in determining what is best for one of us versus another.

My complaint about vegans is that they usually slam anyone who doesn't choose to be vegan over their choices. I've had many vegetarian/vegan/pescatarian friends tell me that the food I choose to eat is sentient. Where do we draw the line on sentience, I usually ask them? For a vegan that seems to mean on any non-plant product, even honey. A vegetarian might choose to drink milk or eat cheese, since nothing is being killed. A pescatarian obviously thinks fish are the cutoff for sentience. But if we are going to cut to the nitty gritty, insects that most any scientist would agree have no idea of what is going on other than an instinct to perform a set series of actions are consumed in mass quantities for their protein. Worms, insects, crabs and lobsters don't even have the pain transmitting chemicals that allow a creature to feel pain. Of course, they do react to stimuli, but so do plants.

Basically we all individually make a determination as to what we consider to be truly sentient and able to understand the far reaching concepts of death and pain. Some people draw the line at plants, others at lower level life forms, but in the end it all comes down to what you believe.

There have been many things in history that have been thought to have been impossible. Neil deGrasse Tyson's presentation on "The God of the Gaps" is a great video addressing that line of thought.

However, that point may not even matter. My hypothesis is that our neurons don't operate all the way down to a sub-atomic or electron-spin level of granularity. There's plenty of complexity at the molecular and cellular scales. We're likely chemical and physical reactions like Newtboy says.

That idea always bothered me.
If the transporter doesn't really transport YOU, but instead only creates a perfect copy of you at the destination and destroys the original, you're dead and a copy has taken your place.
Your consciousness is a function of a complex, ongoing chemical reaction. It IS totally measureable with a powerful and detailed enough MRI. A copy of that is simply a copy. Your consciousness does not transfer from one to the other any more than consciousness is shared by twins.
As to the 'break in consciousness' when sleeping or unconscious, I think it's a misnomer. Your brain continues to work in those situations, only your perception of it is blocked. The chemical reactions that are 'you' continue to occur without a break, you continue to emit brain waves, and your neurons continue to fire. If the chemical reactions in your brain stop, you're dead, not asleep.

We have high school students sending cameras into space. Testing the air at 30k would cost < $500/balloon. If all of the chemtrail theorists put in $100, they could EASILY afford to acquire the 'proof' they needed.
1) Decide what chemicals you want to test for
2) Select a way to test for those chemicals in the air. (active vs passive?)
3) When "Chemtrail" spotted, send up 50+ Weather Balloons in vicinity w/ chemical tester across range... 1 per half mile = 25 mile spread. (it takes 30 mins to climb to 30k feet)
4) Retrieve devices.
5) If no chemicals were found, either:
A) Dispersal of the chemical via chemtrail is terribly inefficient, absolutely no reason to worry
B) No chemicals were found

OR... and here is the brilliant part. Monitor chemicals on the ground. If they are in high enough concentration to have an effect on the human body, they'll be high enough to detect on the ground.

Testing that contrails are nothing but H20 would require a high-altitude drone or just charter a flight. It isn't that difficult to test, but the chemtrails theorists wouldn't trust a non-chemtrails theorist (otherwise they'd be over it for now).

Congratulations! Your video, Wide Open - The Chemical Brothers, 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 33 Badge!

Your video, Wide Open - The Chemical Brothers, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 38 Badge!

"They'd used chemical weapons on their own people, the Kurds..." -Rumsfeld

Yes! Chemical weapons YOU were key in helping them obtain, back when you were best buddies with Saddam. You didn't bat an eye then, you even offered them more helicopters so they could spread it faster! Now if that's a reason to go to war, fine, but start by shooting yourself in the head.

@rbar
well,the man is obviously cis-gender scum.
he was encroaching on her "safe space" and derisive laughter is a form of violence,which "triggered" her response.so her reaction by way of eye-burning chemical deterrent is totally understandable.

she was just defending herself from the oppressive "patriarchy".

this just in:
a man who filmed having an altercation with a woman at a convenience store has lost his job.the company he works for,after being made aware of the employees behavior had this to say-"we hare at super PC mart have a zero tolerance for those in our employ who condone "rape culture".having been made aware of our employees abhorrent and insensitive behavior,have since terminated this mans employment.there is no room in our organization for men who would so callously disregard the plight of the fragile snowflake.his actions do not represent our ideals nor image and we humbly apologize to the victim".

I doubt this very much; I heard on Fox that the leading cause of bee death is actually bee on bee violence, but it's not pollenitically correct to admit that. Instead of trying to drum up chemical guilt, these liberal insecticide-baiters should be talking about the thug culture of bee life that we know goes on out in the colonies (many of which are single queen households).

Are we supposed to believe that Bee Lives Matter is all about ending colony collapse, when the majority of the nuts who participate in this “movement” are demanding whole groups of chemicals be banned just because they happen to demonstrate neoconicotinoid values? We need a ticket of Trump/Thiamethoxam in 2016 to show these honey-sucking gangsters where we stand.

Somewhat related: Toxic “Reform” Law Will Gut State Rules on Dangerous Chemicals

The issue in a single quote:

The Senate bill prohibits states from acting on chemicals that the EPA deems “high priority” while the agency is evaluating them. But the agency’s investigations can go on for years and even decades before it takes action. Back in 2002, for instance, the EPA initiated a high-priority review of PFOA, a chemical used to make Teflon and hundreds of other products. Probable links between the chemical and six diseases have been found in the intervening years, and contamination is now known to be widespread, yet the agency has not regulated it.

The EPA has been investigating the safety of some of the flame retardants that would be banned by the Washington state bill for more than 25 years. And the agency has spent at least 30 years looking at the safety of methylene chloride, which is still widely available in hardware stores though its fumes have been killing people since at least the 1940s.

The suggestion that reefs might be saved by engineered or selected varieties 'farmed' by humans shows a lack of understanding of the massiveness of the problem. This isn't one, 20 square mile reef, which in itself would be completely impossible to 'reseed', this is the entire ocean.
Also, there's absolutely no way to select for varieties that can still make calcium carbonate in acidic waters, the chemical processes just don't happen, so selecting for heat tolerance only addresses one tiny part of an intricate, multifaceted problem.
I wish I could be placated by the idea that people are working on and will solve the problem(s), but I simply know better.

Your video, Chinese Chemical Plant Fire and Explosion, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

As I said in that thread, I don't see an incentive for the US to intervene. This isn't the Cold War battle over spheres of influence, neither does oil have the same geopolitical relevance. Despite the conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Libya, none has led to a spike in oil prices? Instead it's fallen precipitously. Why, because the US being the swing shale oil producer has capped world prices.

Meanwhile I listed the reasons for Russia to intervene, none of which you have challenged or refuted. TOWs have by all accounts been supplied by the Saudis. I don't think Russia is attempting to destabilize Syria, but they do wish to prop up Assad. Bombing has conveniently been primarily of non-ISIS rebels since they challenge the regime more directly than ISIS which is being bombed already.

Syria includes a litany of rebel groups some as radical as ISIS. From what I have read it is suspected that both the Syrian army and al-Nusra/ISIS used various chemical weapons. The Syrian army has undoubtedly dropped barrel bombs, weapons designed to create indiscriminate collateral damage to civilians just like chemical weapons, it is entirely consistent that they would have also tried using chemical weapons which is practical terms are no less likely to be deadly to civilians or likely to incite terror. There are by all accounts >5,000 different rebel groups in Syria. That you would ascribe them all as wanting chaos would suggest you've been fed a narrative.

A Cold War MAD mindset makes little sense today. Russian bombing of western Europe in some kind of hypothetical retaliation against the US makes no sense in this day and age. In any case it was scrapped because of Putin's paranoia.

To think that the USA has for once not used proxies to deliver weapons, is, to put it mildly, insane. They had training camps since the beginning in Jordan. Same as the UK and France. There were huge old stockpiles of weapons in the Balkan for example. They somehow found their way to Syria into FSA hands, even though Saudis, Qataris, and Turkish mainly supported Al Nusra and IS. TOWs found their way to those extremists. Actually the USA sent those officially.

Of course Russia has its own interests there, but its not destabilization. That alone is reason enough to support them instead of the USA and their lackeys and boot lickers.

It has never been proven that Assad used chemical weapons. The investigators couldnt even find good indications for it. But that the extremists used chemical weapons in other cases was later confirmed. Funnily there wasnt such a huge fuss about it. Hmmm... wonder why.
The extremists also made it clear from the beginning that they dont want a successor from the current leader. They want power. They want a Sunni regime.

You then saying the ABM shield is only directed at Iran is ridiculous to say the least. MAD has its reason and saved us from otherwise certain global nuclear war quite a few times in the past. A shield like that can circumvent MAD, which is a wet dream of the neocons, always has been. Thats why the USA left the ABM treaty, NOT Russia.

Sad to see you didnt read the link (or ignored it) I linked you before. Instead you keep spewing out lies.