Initially when she panned over to the raccoon in the lamp over the dinner table it looked like she had put it in a gibbet. And yeah, she could have handled that a lot better.

Or he'll take the sign home, put in a chair, sit across from it at his dinner table and give it the stink-eye while eating microwaved mac&cheese.

*promote because THE DINNER TABLE IS NO PLACE FOR DISCONTENT

Saves deer, then goes home to eat a lamb....


Edit: Saving the deer is a really nice thing to do, and it shows that most people genuinely care for animals, but are completely unaware that they're causing an animal holocaust at the dinner table. Each time they eat, they've killed by proxy a animal just as innocent as that deer. Especially when it comes to lamb and veal, they are generally only months old.

Just goes to show, out of sight, out of mind I guess.

@newtboy

Oh, absolutely, the video is poorly titled. I'll give you that.

But everything else you wrote is, for lack of a better term, uninformed.

Certainly commercial meat suppliers in first world countries like the U.S. have bowed to the "politically correct" demands of PETA to "humanely" kill animals. Poultry are knocked unconscious (with electric shocks) before having their throats slit while larger animals like cows are killed with a single shot to the head. Concern with how "humanely" the animals are killed is rather comical given the conditions under which most commercial animals are bred and raised, but that's an issue for another thread.

Now, if you think stuff like this video doesn't happen in places like the U.S. I'm gonna guess you don't realize what happens on typical farms where people raise livestock for their dinner table as opposed to commercial sale. People kill animals exactly in this and similar ways--slitting their throats, beheading them with axes, grabbing poultry by the head and breaking their necks, etc. Don't believe me? Check out this thread on how to kill a chicken. What happens in this video happens across first world countries, including the U.S., on a daily basis. Your shock comes from the fact that modern society has insulated you from the killing by hiding it from you.

Now, the people in this video are probably not living in a first world country, and we've already established that even if they were the animal would likely be butchered in a similar way if it is being prepared for personal use as opposed to commercial sale. They're most likely doing it the way it's been done there for hundreds if not thousands of years using the tools available to them to get the job done. Slashing the carotid artery is the fastest and most painless way (compared to other methods) to kill the camel. I can't think of a faster or more painless way other than shooting it in the head (which still risks ricochets and assumes personal gun ownership is legal in the country where this is happening).

No, capitalism is cynical and manipulative in general. It also promotes freedom in general, ie., the antithesis to community. Is it no wonder we bemoan the fact that kids are more into their ipads then the dinner table? But we promote that as entitled, and how dare someone tell you how to live. Etc., so forth and so on.

And btw, sleazier ads sell better than wholesome ads. So "they could have done it better" is actually only your opinion but makes very little economic sense. I used to say the same thing about Jerry Springer, then I looked at the dumbass audience that watches it...

I think it's real:

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/fish-tries-escape-dinner-table-after-head-removed

I agree, and here's the change that I've noticed. The phone traveling from the pocket, onto the dinner table. I think this is just rude, you're at dinner with people, spending time with them and giving them your focus, keep it in your pants.

In particular I've seen it in "The Trip to Italy" a distinct change from "The Trip" they have their phones on the table. They're at restaurants with friends or with eachother two funny comedians who are being filmed and are being entertaining. More specifically they're filming this for an audience and they constantly have their phones about, it's annoying.

I don't take calls when I'm in the room with others, I don't text in the middle of conversations especially not when at dinner. Put the phones down, the person who is right in front of you deserves the most attention.

>> ^legacy0100:

Where's the dinner? Where's the food?


They'd already had it, they showed a bit of it at the start. The debate happened afterwards

>> ^Solid_Muldoon:

All three of these guys are really missing the point. Under the law, marriage is a legal contract between two competent, consenting adults. It is a legal partnership. Period. The law has nothing to do with religion.
The 14th amendment demands equal protection of the law to all citizens. The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that marriage is a "basic civil right."
Case closed.


Except you can't just do that. Well, you can, but you haven't won the war by that argument.

You can make it law, you can enforce that it is law, but the underlying problem is that there are people who think it's wrong, and that's what you need to change. Make them see that the only thing they're clinging onto to justify their dislike of gay people (passages in the bible), are on the same level as passages that allow slavery and persecution and execution.

NY Times link.

"As for Mr. Savage, he felt that being on his home turf had actually worked against him. “Playing host put me in this position of treating Brian Brown like a guest,” he said. “It was better in theory than in practice — it put me at a disadvantage during the debate, as the undertow of playing host resulted in my being more solicitous and considerate than I should’ve been. If I had it to do over again, I think I’d go with a hall.”

i don't know which part i like more: the ridiculous 10ft exhaust pipes or the dinner table sized front spoilers :-)

Sigh.. fatuous rhetorical questions... do you REALLY need me to confirm that this type of thing is an exception and not morally wrong? Technically/semantically, there's no conscious decision there. Killing someone who's an immediate threat to your children is an instinctive reaction, not a deliberate moral choice.

If it helps you to wrap your head around the concept, I'll re-phrase: the conscious and deliberate PLANNING to take someone else's life is always wrong. This would include any kind of pre-meditated killing like the death penalty, or abortion*, but not euthanasia. Please don't hit me with another obvious exception like if a serial killer mails you a gun and his address and says you have to kill him within an hour or your family dies. Yes, you would be morally right to kill him.

I find your notion that government should be empowered to take people's lives as a form of "justice" to be utterly disgusting. I can really understand now why it's considered rude to bring up politics at the dinner table. (EDIT: I sound like a real ass here, reading this back. You're entitled to your opinon... )

* while abortion is morally wrong, people ought to have the right to do it. You can't legislate morality.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Always wrong though? Like if someone is trying to kill my daughter and I kill him in the struggle?

Dude's dinner table is seriously out of level.

Reminds me of something...