If I believed in Karma, then I'd say it's for the hundreds of fish this guy has impaled in the mouth with his fishing hook, and then left to suffocate on the boat. Either way, it's so much needless suffering.

Richard Dawkins seems to think that the lower intelligence a creature the more pain it feels (to keep it safe, since it's unable to reason as effectively). There's no real way to tell how much pain a fish feels, but watching it try to escape as it's being pulled by the mouth is a pretty good indicator. For comparison if someone stuck a hook in a dogs mouth, and then pulled the dog along as it squirmed and writhed in pain, people would lose their minds. A fish is doing the same thing, only minus the yelping.

Your video, SoftPop: a modular musical synthesizer creature, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Living in Japan, I get to eat octopus pretty frequently and I'm always so conflicted about it. On the one hand, I really admire them as they're such smart creatures. On the other hand, they are damned tasty when prepared right (great takoyaki, for instance).

Still, there is no way I would eat this. I prefer my food 100% dead. I had the same problem at a sushi place once where they took the fish out of the tank and sliced it up right in front of us. The fish slices were still wiggling ever so slightly when the chef handed them to us. I couldn't eat it and my friend wound up eating my share.

"Dead"? Not so sure. They have brain matter in those arms. I imagine an unimaginable horror for said creature...in the prolonged throwes of its demise.

(been feeling grim lately)

Although I don't know the specifics here, and I understand that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense, it seems flat out insane to criminally prosecute the guy.

I give him the benefit of the doubt that they are telling the truth and this at least started by bailing rainwater out of a boat. That's a very normal activity, no reason to presume that any harm could come of it.

Then, first bucket gets tossed in and he sees that big splash. It's Florida, so there could be lots of potential explanations. It might be bigass catfish. It might be alligators. Could even be dolphins, depending on where they are in Florida. ...And, it might be manatees, although that probably wouldn't be the first thing I would think of.

So, big splash. I'd be surprised. My first reaction would be: "I wonder if it will happen again after another bucket." NOT "Oh dear, perhaps I am frightening some poor defenseless little creatures and should immediately cease what I'm doing." If I came the the conclusion that it was gators (which seems more likely/reasonable than manatees to me, although I don't live there), it would even stand to reason that frightening them off would be a good thing to do -- encourage them to move away from populated areas.

Given all that, it seems very unlikely to me that the dude had any malicious intent. If he knew they were manatees and knew that stressing them out like that could negatively impact their health, perhaps punishment would be in order. But if he thought they were anything else (fish / gators / whatever), or just plain didn't know, continuing to bail the boat in an attempt to get whatever they might be to swim away seems like a very reasonable thing to do.

Educating people that "hey, if you see something like this happening, it might be manatees and you should try to avoid stressing them out" seems like by far a better and more rational option than "throw the animal torturer in the slammer!"

Award for Rant of the Day goes to Caitlin Johnstone, again, for today's piece called Establis
hment Loyalists Spent Yesterday Circulating Blatant Lies About Glenn Greenwald.

"The fact-free McCarthyist feeding frenzy that has engulfed political discourse in America is what has emboldened these horrible creatures to start promulgating complete works of fiction about their critics and expect no pushback whatsoever."

@ChaosEngine
that article was utter shit.

"friend zone" is a term used to shame women?
how can that possibly be considered an even remotely true statement?

she makes a valid point in that women are not binary creatures,and are mutli-faceted,nuanced and complex.well of COURSE they are,but the "friend zone" is from the guys perspective,not a woman's!

do you know why the majority of some men end up in the "friend zone"? or should we just change that term to be more accurate "i am not interested in you because you put all your cards on the table in the first five seconds,so while i think that is sweet,i no longer am curious about you,because i already got you".

you know..the "friend zone",or as chris rock put it "emergency dick,just break glass".

the problem here is that while relationships are a long slog of compromise,negotiation and mutual respect to work towards a common goal.romantic courtships are akin to a game,a playful dance fueled by curiosity,intrigue and of course:lust.

the men who who get relegated to the "friend zone" do not understand this very basic tenant of courtship.they reveal all their cards up front,and while that may be the most honest approach,and one that women have been openly asking for,it ignores that underneath it all,a woman wants romance,mystery and a sense of discovery that will continually peak their interests.

they want to be woo'd,they want courtship and romance.
when a man shows all his cards he takes that way from the woman,and now that she knows she can "have" him.he no longer interests her.

and what the author of this article so callously ignores is that the "friend zone" is not really a friend at all,but a surrogate for a boyfriend.having a bad day?she calls her "friend".feeling bloated and unattractive? has her "friend" come over to make her feel better about herself.needs a date for her company christmas party and doesn't want to go alone? get her "friend" to come along.

so it should not be a surprise that some men find this hurtful and degrading.

but she has a point,the woman owes them nothing.the woman was honest and forthright and it is the man who has put himself in this position.

and let me be clear before i am accused of being a misogynist pig.

some men do the exact same thing,and i am guilty of it myself.

i grew up with three sisters,so i tend to be more aware and sensitive to women's choices,and i respect their space.i have never been one to push myself on any woman.i was never the one to pursue or as this article describes "persistent",because i saw that as a bit "stalky".

so if i was interested in a woman,and that interest was not reciprocated,i shifted to "friend" mode with no issue.to me it was a win-win.ok,so she was not interested in me in that way,but she is super cool,and interesting and now i have a really interesting and intriguing friend.

now here is an interesting thing that happened maybe half of the time.my new friend and i would hang out,go to pubs,clubs,movies and sometimes just make dinner and watch movies.friends right? she was upfront and honest with me that she was not interested in me in that way,and i can respect that.

and then one day she would have her college friend over for dinner (this is a true story btw,one of many).her friend was cute,smart,witty and had a sick sense of humor.yep,i was digging on my friends college friend,and we were flirting up a storm.we were vibing hard,clicking like we knew each other for years.

now what do you think happened?
i bet you can guess.
and you would be right.
my friend,who was honest with me about not being interested,started to get real shitty with me.like offensive shitty and i really did not understand why.it came out of nowhere,and now she was acting like some jealous girlfriend.

so i pull her aside and i am like..what the fuck is wrong with you? you are being an asshole!

you know what she said to me? and i can remember this clear as day "watching my friend flirt with you,and seeing how much she is into you.i began to see you in a different light.i can see how she sees you,and that you are amazing but you are MY steve! not hers!".

and then she tried to kiss me,which was just awkward,because to me? she was in the "friend zone",and had been for over 6 months.i didn't want her that way.the irony here is that she could not handle that,and our friendship dissolved.which just fucking sucks.

this scenario has played out in my life quite a few times.so while anecdotal,i suspect women have had similar experiences.

so the "friend zone' may be considered a woman's thing directed at men,but in reality it is non-gender specific.most likely because woman are pursued more than men,but both men and women can be put in the "friend zone".

so what can we learn from this?
don't be a sap.
have some self respect and do not allow another person to use you for their own well being and sense of self.
if they are not interested? move on.
if they just want to be a friend? then be a friend,but do not expect anything more.if you cannot handle that,then move on.

pining away from a distance in the slim hopes that the focus of your affections will one day change their mind,is just pathetic.

and for fuck sakes,stop blaming that person for your heartache.
you put yourself in that position,and you can pull yourself out.

and the term "friend zone" is not used to shame women,that is just fucking stupid.the "friend zone" is a place that you put yourself in,because of flawed sense of romance,and you allowed yourself to be used for the betterment of another human being.so while you may be hurt and angry,you only have yourself to blame.

respect yourself yo.
/end rant

I kind of feel like by this rational... skydivers are the fastest creatures on the planet.

Thoughts,

IIRC the main argument against women's vote was that it would in effect give married men two votes (the expectation being that the wife was subservient to the husband, and would vote as she was told). AFAIK it wasn't because it was something difficult that needed to be taken off of their shoulders.

In actuality, if we stopped eating meat, we would stop breeding all the food animals (because who's gonna pay for it?), and it would be a massive near extinction event. It's not as if these animals are in the wild anymore, and most have been selectively bred to such extremes that they would die in nature (cows producing so much milk they would damage themselves if not milked, and sheep producing so much wool that they would die of heat if not sheared, etc). If using population as a metric, food animals are some of the most successful creatures on earth.

-scheherazade

Clearly fake. Everyone knows that geese are universally mean-spirited creatures whose primary interaction with other animals only include hissing and pinching with their beaks.


Seriously though, when I was a very young child my family had a couple of geese that were raised from little goslings. Those suckers would go after pretty much every other living thing that got anywhere near their pond. They'd chase and pinch our dogs, before the dogs learned to stay away from the pond.

They also once guzzled down a huge amount of old motor oil that got left out after an oil change. We figured they were goners, but I guess they just had extra-oily shit for a while, they never showed any ill effects from it.

If only every entity were empathetic. What a beautiful creature.

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

@coolhund @JustSaying

Not just CO2 production. Also use of fresh water resources. Polluted water from feces collection (and yes, conventional agriculture is polluting water with chemical runoff.) In places, the cutting down of rain forest to create areas for beef production. The huge overhang of methane over New Zealand from all the farting sheep (that would be part of the CO2 mentioned. But I can't pass up the opportunity to actually type "farting sheep.")

"Beautiful creatures" are in danger. Not just these.

And I do eat meat. And drive my car. And am a hypocrite.

We can all help to keep these beautiful creatures alive by consuming less meat (preferably none):-)
The choice and power to help or harm them is ours, with every meal.

This reminds me of how awesome Nick Park is. Creature comforts.