At least we know the chickens in Europe/UK's KFC are free range, unlike the far more dubious US's.

Your news for the day....

Devin Nunes is sour because he can no longer milk his lawsuits over his fake cow (and fake mother) slaughtering him on Twitter after a judge put them out to pasture by releasing all defendants unbranded to live their lives unmolested out on the free range.

Twitter was released previously, and he has no idea who the cow or his mother are to sue them....not that he has any case to begin with, parody is protected from libel and slander laws. It's udderly ridiculous.

If the remarks being contradicted are not only smug they're also ridiculous, devoid of fact, racist, and or dangerously stupid (like insisting in May that Coronavirus is a hoax that's not dangerous and is a "nothing burger", and everyone should be back at work), and contradicting them with facts and references and +- 1/4 the disrespect the original remarks contained makes people vote for Trump, that does indicate they were already trumpsters imo.

Edit: It's like Democrats have a high bar to clear, but Republicans have no depth too deep to stoop to.

Trump changes Bob's beliefs daily, every time he changes a position Bob changes his belief to make the new position seem reasonable to him. He is not consistent. No other opinion matters to him.

I don't hold beliefs, I have theories. It's easy to change your theory when given new information, I do all the time. Beliefs don't work that way, so I avoid them as much as possible.

Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious. I would eat people if they were raised and fed better, but we are polluted beyond recovery imo.

You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to. Killing for sport seems worse, so do kill "shelters", puppy mills, habitat destruction, ocean acidification, etc....I could go on for pages with that list. I try to eat free range locally farmed on family farms meat, not factory farm meat. I know the difference in quality.

I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" (yes, someone insisted that was true because they didn't care it wasn't, it helped scare people, I contradicted him every time he lied.) The difference is, I could agree with some of their points that weren't gross exaggeration, I agreed that excessive meat eating is horrible for people, I agree that most meat is produced under horrific conditions, I would not agree that ALL meat is unhealthy in any amount and ALL meat is tortured it's entire lifetime because I know from personal experience that's just not true. We raised cattle, free range cattle, in the 70's. They were happy cows that had an enjoyable life roaming our ranch until the day they went to market, a life they wouldn't have if people didn't eat meat.

I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me. The fact checking part of my brain goes on high alert when talking with them about health or other issues involved in meat production, with excellent reason.

Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

Here's the thing, Bob consistently trolls in a condescending, self congratulatory, and bat shit crazy way. Turnabout is fair play.
As the only person willing to reply to him for long stretches, I know him. I've had many private conversations with him where he's far more reasonable, honest, willing to admit mistakes, etc. (Something I gave up when he applauded Trump lying under oath because "only a dummy tells the truth under oath if the truth might harm them, Trump winning!") When someone is so anti truth and snide, they deserve some snidely delivered truth in return. Bob has proven he's undeserving of the civility you want him to receive, it's never returned.

Bob does not take anything in from any source not pre approved by Trump. I've tried for a decade, and now know he only comes here to troll the libtards. It doesn't matter if you show him video proof and expert opinions, he'll ignore them and regurgitate more nonsense claiming the opposite of reality. He's not trying to change minds, in case you're confused. He's hoping to trick people who for whatever reason refuse to investigate his factless hyper biased claims and amplify the madness. That he comes here to do that, a site he regularly calls a pure liberal site (it's not) is proof enough to convict him of just trolling.

Trolls deserve derision.

I spent years ignoring his little jabs, insults, derisions, and whinging and trying hard to dispassionately contradict his false claims with pure facts and references, it was no different then.
While privately he would admit he's wrong, he would then publicly repeat the claims he had just admitted were bullshit. When he started supporting perjury from the highest position on earth down as long as they're Republican but still calls for life in prison for democrats that he thinks lied even not under oath, he lost any right to civil replies imo. He bought it when Republican representatives said publicly in interviews that they have no obligation to be truthful with the American people, and he applauds it and repeats their lies with glee.

Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies. How long are you capable of rebutting them with just fact and references when they are smug, snide, insulting, dangerous, and seriously delusional if not just purely dishonest?

Rebuttal?

:45..."what can we do about it?
A: Have fewer children.

2:20 "we could nourish an additional 3.5 billion more people if we just ate the stuff we feed to animals"
.....except humans can't eat grasses, the main food source for cattle. Most of what we feed animals is not considered edible by humans. Organic free range chickens eat insects and slugs, is the narrator prepared to live on that to prove his point? I doubt it.

6:13 "burgers are the best food".
This proves this was made by non meat eaters with no knowledge of meat at all. Anyone who would contend a 1/4 pounder s the pinnacle of meat dishes should have their tongue removed so they don't spread more nonsense, they obviously aren't using it to taste food. ;-)

I concur. He's definitely a loose cannon. Free range. Monster Is Loose. Real life Captain Quint.

Not all. Some of us DO see humans as potential protein sources, but that protein is highly contaminated in most cases. I have no problem contemplating smoking and eating (or better, using as livestock feed) some wild caught, free range, pure organic long pig...or soylent green once the purification process is perfected. ;-)

Please stop pretending the entire farming industry practices the worst possible practices. It's not true and you know it. Yes, those practices do happen, but there are alternatives where the animals enjoy better than natural lives under the care of their farmers. It's analogous to saying no one should have dogs because puppy mills are horrendous places that should be eradicated.
My eggs come from free range chickens with windows in their roomy coop, and they never get turned into meat when they stop laying, nor do male chicks get chipper shredded.
Egg laying hens and milk cows do not get turned into meat for human consumption.
Many dairy farms do not practice ANY of the methods you claim.

If you call all farmers murderers and torturers, and all their customers accomplices, you have called all non vegans murderers and torturers.

Go to the butcher.
Inuit eat meat because it's all they have. Same with many Maasi, who survive on milk and blood from their cattle with no other resource to exploit. Pretty damn good and logical reason IMO, not starving.
I'm waiting on that video.

Are farm animals purchased (or bred) with the intention of making money. Yes. Does that mean their well being and happiness is not a concern? Absolutely not. Even factory farmers would admit that happier, healthier animals are more productive (grow faster) and are better quality. It does take more money and effort to farm that way, and is not scalable, so corporate farms go for the quicker dollar at the expense of the animal, usually. That doesn't mean all farms operate that way, with profit being the first and only concern.
And no, it's not 100% certain farmed animals will die young or be abused. For instance, when we raised cattle, we allowed the herd to roam and breed naturally, took good care of them, and many died of old age before we sold off the herd. My aunt still raises her own beef with I think <10 cows, and they often die of old age because she can't eat all she raises, they live happy lives. In factory farms, you're likely correct.
My point is, if you really want to make a difference in reducing animal suffering, I think you would have more success trying to convince people to buy free range, non hormone meats from good smaller local farms with good reputations for proper animal treatment over attempting to convince them to give up meat completely. It's a matter of how much people are willing to change, and getting the best outcome possible for the animals, right? I think convincing meat eaters to go vegan is a non starter 99% of the time at best.

And to answer the above morality question, would it be immoral for you to do that to my dog? Yes. Would it be immoral for ME to do it to my dog? I guess that depends on many things, like if he's used completely as part of the early termination (eaten, worn, etc.), is he euthanized painlessly and without fear, etc. ...but I liked Logan's Run, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask those kinds of morality questions. ;-)

Then I'll be certain to NOT watch it (cowspiracy).
The only thing that would have a chance to make me go vegetarian (vegan is just nuts to me) would be being convinced that ALL food animals are mistreated. Since I know they aren't, watching videos of animal abuse is less than worthless, it's insulting and a simple attempt to 'pull at my heart strings', which always backfires when tried with me. I know full well that factory farms are disgusting...which is why I try to buy locally grown, 'free range' meats from smaller farms.
As to all the issues associated with 'meat production', they are really a product of too many people. If there were far fewer people to feed, factory farms would never exist, and neither would all those issues listed. I did my part by getting fixed and not having children, so I'll eat whatever I please and still be far ahead of the vegan with 3 kids as far as my ecological impact goes...far-far ahead.
;-)

My point. Honesty would go a long way, much farther than exaggeration to make a point. Things are bad enough without any need for exaggeration clouding the waters. The video strongly implied that this is how all milk is produced, while, as you indicated, as much as 50% is not produced using these methods. Those 50% should be mentioned, IMO, and applauded for taking the extra time and effort to give their animals a better, at least comfortable if not free, life.

Your stats sound like a reason to buy milk...from local smaller producers. Otherwise only the giant factory farms that are invariably the worst at care for the animals will be left. A better solution in my eyes is to support those doing it 'right'.

Your stats are confusing. In one paragraph, you say that 50% of milk is made by 'smaller' (<500 cow-'good') farms, then you have other statistics about tiny (<100 cow) farms. If under 500 cow farms are USUALLY the "good" kind, why mention the under 100 cow stat, unless it's just to show how few there are in what's likely the 'best' category? (or is it to include my family's farm techniques in the equation, since we've discussed it before?...so you know, we had 200+- head on 300 acres when we had them, free range...now we (well, they, I moved to California) have about 100+- angora goats) Again, the second set of stats would also seem to me to be a good argument for supporting local, small farmers that take much better care of their animals (and produce a better product), rather than a good reason to boycott farm products altogether....but that's just me.

EDIT: Can we agree that the tactic of, without warning, showing horrid animal abuse to people who love animals is not a good way to get them on your side?

It's not inhumane ('humane' being another oxymoron, because it's meaning, and acting like a normal human, are opposites) because 1)they have a life at all, which they would not if not given the opportunity by my family 2) they have a place to live that life, which they would not if not given the use of the land and 3) nature also creates barriers to movement, so it's not unnatural for an animal to live it's entire lifespan in one place...perhaps for cattle, but not the rest. Farm animals are not humans, and those that have an aversion to being stationary have no place on a farm. You could say that not being nomadic is 'inhumane', as our natural state is not sedentary, but few would argue it's 'cruel'.
'Animals' are not humans, so are not slaves. That idea makes you sound ridiculous. See the South Park episode for a good example.
Stopping suffering is not within our scope.
There are many reasons why stopping meat eating is not reasonable, but the one you should be the most interested in is, if humans didn't eat cattle, they might be extinct. The same goes for many animals we eat, and if we didn't eat things like pork, the ecological disaster feral pigs create would be almost as bad as what humans do.
It would be easier and cheaper to change the conditions in the slums of India and elsewhere than it would be to eradicate the meat production (edit:and consumption) of the entire planet. What do the people do now that no longer have jobs? What do you do with all the animals that no longer have a 'use' and don't own property to move onto? How do you control their numbers so they don't destroy what's left of the planet?
Technically, yes, all humans are animals. Mentally handicapped humans are not TREATED 'like animals', by which you MEAN treated poorly and without thought for their comfort and well being, which in fact is NOT how most animals are treated in our first world society, no matter how much you think so. Factory farms are a different matter.
When dolphins take control, they can treat mentally handicapped dolphins better than average humans. It's not arbitrary to treat your own species as the most important, it's an evolutionary trait almost all species likely possess.
No, I can't eat an entire vegan diet. I've tried many vegan foods, and found them ALL inedible, some made me sick.

You made blanket statements about how ALL animals are treated, and how ALL meat is produced and then defended that blanket statement. I'm glad you now admit your mistake, I hope you can see it through and stop blanket blaming ALL meat eaters.

What other people eat is farther outside your influence than how they treat their children.

Without the calorie dense food that is 'meat', we would still be nomadic gatherers, if we could exist at all. Eating meat is one of the things that gave us the energy to evolve those 'higher brains' that can choose our actions and determine what's 'rational'.
You will never see a vegan Olympic athlete. (Edit: well, maybe in Olympic curling...)

Daesh has brought about change...a change that THEY see as positive. That's not a good argument.

Yes, you are a monster for supporting such unabashed, unproductive carnivores ;-)...and I would hazard a guess that you don't feed them only free range, gmo free turkey carcasses, so you sound worse than me, the unashamed meat eater that pays the extra money for proper animal treatment....not just for them but because it's healthier meat too.

I did my part for the animals and the planet by not having children. ;-) Too bad I'm such a minority that it won't make a whit of difference.

OK, his studies beat my anecdotal bias.

...That being said, I will continue to eat breakfast cereal with milk pretty much every day (as I have since I was very very young), and be strongly tempted to attribute my own lack of having ever broken a bone to that.

The other anecdote I have in my favor is coming from a farm family that raised chickens. I grew up in a prairie grassland area (converted to irrigated farmland thanks to aquifer access), while my cousins lived a couple hours away in limestone hills ranchland. Both of our families raised free range chickens.

Our chickens produced very thin-shelled eggs, and displayed behavior to suggest they were calcium-deprived. For example, our chickens wouldn't cannibalize their own viable eggs, but if we threw empty shells to them they would fight to eat the shells. Same but to a lesser extent for leftover bones, etc. (I assume they fought less over these because bones are harder to near impossible to break down with a beak). On the other side of the table, we sometimes exchanged eggs with my cousins, and their chicken's eggs were always extremely thick-shelled and hard to crack open.

When I asked about that, my folks told me (and later my Biology teacher confirmed) that was because the sod/soil around my home and flora and fauna growing from it contained very little natural calcium. Chickens raised in our area would often be supplemented with commercial feed that contained extra calcium, but we let ours range for food and eat table scraps; almost never supplementing their food with any commercial stuff. But the limestone (aka calcium carbonate) around my cousin's house contained very high amounts of natural calcium, which was naturally infused into the plants / grains / insects that their chickens ate, giving them incredibly thick shells.

So, I guess that while calcium intake apparently doesn't have a very statistically significant impact on human bone growth, I think that it must have a much more significant role to play in egg thickness if you happen to be a chicken... At least if you compare extremes of low natural calcium diet versus extremely high natural calcium diet.

Well, wouldn't someone EXPECT that compounds on Mars would be pesticide-free, non-genetically modified, and free-range?

Thou shalt kneel before thine *religion of statism and follow thine Commandments, which include, but are not limited to:

1) Thou shalt kill and/or pay for the killing of anyone who the state deigns deserving of murder, regardless of their "crime" or innocence;
2) Thou shalt make enemies of thine friends, relatives, and neighbors so as to divide thine families and communities for the sake of vying for state-granted "privileges" at everyone else's expense;
3) Thou shalt work for the state and receive just enough "freedom" to sustain the illusion of being "free-range" chattel;
4) Thou shalt seek loopholes within the laws while aiming to restrict others within them;
5) Thou shalt only seek to create laws, but never repeal them;
6) Thou shalt vote for cronies who pursue their own self-interest (and those of their financial interests) while claiming to "represent" you;
7) Thou shalt only use fiat currency, which can be -- and frequently is -- arbitrarily inflated and devalued, at will, by those in the central bank known as thine Federal Reserve;
8. Thou shalt keep the idea of government holy, and never take the name of its offices in vain;
9) Thou shalt remember thine mafia-like extortions known as taxes, and always pay on time;
10) Thou shalt honor thine state-imposed educators and regulators and give up thine rights whenever police officers and other authorities deem it convenient for you to do so.

Thou shalt not think for oneself.