Two of the most lovable persons in the world "back in my day"
on the same stage!

Dear TrumpTards,

What you just heard is called "Class". I know you're unfamiliar with it, so maybe listen to that a few more times. Perhaps you'll get it. After all, someone taught a Border Collie to count to eight, and a Border Collie is only twice as smart and 10 times as lovable as you!

Best of luck!

He's nowhere near as useful or lovable as a scorpion. Trump is the absolute worst kind of filth, and this world will be a substantially better place when he is gone. The sooner, the better.

Man, if there was ever a remake of Poltergeist 2, George Takei would be the perfect cast for Reverend Kane. Creepiest lovable person I've ever seen.

@newtboy: Just to be clear, I really appreciate your comments. It's nice to talk to an omnivore who doesn't just respond with "I'LL EAT TWICE AS MUCH MEAT AS YOU DO TO MAKE UP FOR YOUR VEGANISM!" I'm trying to be objective, and I appreciate your attempt as well.

That being said...

I respect the genuine care you give to your animals. I didn't know you or your family (or both) owned such a farm. It does sound like you do, truly, meet their needs as animals. However, (and I hate to bring out the really controversial stuff), I'm sure plenty of slave-owners treated their slaves with genuine humanity. But that doesn't excuse the categorical enslavement of other beings. Despite all care given to those animals, they are still not able to live their natural lives as animals on earth. I don't see why our subjugation, no matter how "humane", can be considered anything less than "inhumane".

Now, the comparison to "most children in the world" is a moot one. Yes, of course everywhere there are going to be worse things happening. But the point is that we are rational, (hopefully) decent, higher-order-understanding-of-the-universe beings. Humans seem to like to cherry-pick when their huge brain is an excuse for greatness, or ignored and "we're just animals after all". So, just because there is suffering outside the scope of our influence, we do all have the ability to stop eating meat. Pretty easily, in fact, since there are tons and tons and tons of other means to get all the nutrition we need (not to mention way, way healthier means).

The point is that we are completely and totally (especially as upper-middle class 1st-world citizens) capable of not eating meat this very moment. You can't, however, change the living conditions in the slums of India by yourself right now.

And explain to me how mentally handicapped humans are not animals. What is the distinction? They are both objectively less intelligent. If anything, animals are more capable of surviving on their own. What makes mentally handicapped people any more special than animals? Just because they're human? That seems arbitrary. True, they should be treated differently because they are different animals, but I mean why should one be treated to our moral consideration and one should not? What makes humans so damn special?

And that "sustenance" argument is really, really misguided. As said above, you can eat an entire vegan diet and be probably even more healthy than an omnivore. And animals are not minimally suffering. Yes, a very cherished, rare group, as your animals are, are "minimally suffering", but many, many, many, many more are being horribly abused for that sustenance that can be gained elsewhere (with suffering of its own, truly. I always hear the "well, there are people given slave wages to pick vegetables in California". But, you'll be eating those vegetables and fruits anyway. That's an entirely other battle that needs to be waged in other ways, not through lack of consumption).

My assumption was not that 100% of farmers treat their animals inhumanely. My assumption was that billions of animals are being treated inhumanely. And the way parents treat their children is a red herring. That's not my argument at all. And again, it's outside the realm of my influence.

And to counter your last argument... my same argument above follows for the "food chain/web" argument. Once and for all:

We are rational, amazing, smart, complex and powerful beings on this planet. We have it within our power (each of us) to not eat meat. This is "against nature". But so is basically OUR ENTIRE CIVILIZATION. What makes us truly different from animals is that exact ability. To step back and choose our actions. Are you saying humans not capable of choosing their actions -- those with so much in the 1st world countries? That we're all forced to, by nature, to eat meat? That is the cognitive dissonance I speak of. That we're so special because we are rational beings, but at the same time we must eat meat because we are not rational human beings.

This entire argument was not endorsed by PETA, because they're a bunch of assholes -- but despite being assholes one can't argue that they have brought about change. Change comes from all angles. Grassroots, insane radicals, scientists, humanitarians. They all try to bring change in different ways and succeed influencing different groups. PETA's brazenness is its power. Large corporations, like McDonald's, must respond to such a power. Despite being assholes. Both of them.

--

I want to end on a note of humility -- that I admit to having that same cognitive dissonance when it comes to animals. As a cat owner, I often visualize the mound of turkey carcasses that both of my lovable kittens live on top of. And they truly are carnivores in that they cannot find sustenance outside of meat. How do I rationalize all the turkey deaths (my cats only exclusively eat turkey for some goddamn reason) just so I can have my lovable pets? I can't. And it kills me. Not sure if I'll get cats after they die.

--

Thanks for reading. That was a lot.

That's why they have weight classes in fighting sports. You can't rule anything out, but quite clearly early on the big guy had hold of him and let go, he was playing.

Knowing Connor, he'd have asked if the guy wanted to spar a little, just for fun; and consider what Connor - an tough, egotistical (yet lovable), pro fighter - finds fun He definitely wanted to carry that on longer than was comfortable for the big fella after he got grabbed early on... let him know who would win a real fight. Cheeky bugger, but definitely the archetypal lovable rogue.

You buy them because they are cute and lovable, not because they are smart .

God damn it banks, don't you start doing ads that actually make you seem nice and lovable. This actually made me cry.

I had close to the exact opposite reaction.

I love dogs if they are mine, but other people's dogs are a bloody menace (shit in my yard, bark at me on the public street, scare my kids/family, etc.). On the other hand, cats are always their usual occasionally-lovable-but-usually-aloof selves, whether they belong to you or somebody else (don't get me wrong, I love cats when I own them, I'm just not looking for constant overt affection from them).

A cat like this one looks like it would probably begrudgingly tolerate a dog that belonged to its owner, but any other dog that comes sniffing around is going to get a face full of claws and a health dose of "and STAY out" chasing for good measure. Which is pretty much the ideal behavior for a cat, in my opinion...

To fans of Qi, Alan Davies is now just Alan, our little lovable puppy.

This was on my to-watch list for ages too, which built up my expectations rather unrealistically. It's a very good film and Audrey Tautou is incredibly lovable but the film isn't any more than very good. Expectation is the enemy of satisfaction.

I'm also sure they play it up for the cameras

>> ^Kofi:

I'm going to defend this show... somewhat.
The dad loves his family and works hard. He does a lot to provide for them.
Honey boo-boo is a funny kid that is not merely the mirror of her mothers unfulfilled childhood desires. She has some genuine fight in her and isn't a nightmare "me me me" kid that you might expect.
The other kids seem pretty well adjusted.
The mum, well, she has issues but she isn't controlling or nasty.
Their diet is fucking dreadful!
Don't get me wrong. This is freak-show television but they are nice, even lovable, freaks without the bitchiness and machismo one has come to expect thanks to shows like Jersey Shore or Real Housewives.

I'm going to defend this show... somewhat.

The dad loves his family and works hard. He does a lot to provide for them.
Honey boo-boo is a funny kid that is not merely the mirror of her mothers unfulfilled childhood desires. She has some genuine fight in her and isn't a nightmare "me me me" kid that you might expect.
The other kids seem pretty well adjusted.
The mum, well, she has issues but she isn't controlling or nasty.
Their diet is fucking dreadful!

Don't get me wrong. This is freak-show television but they are nice, even lovable, freaks without the bitchiness and machismo one has come to expect thanks to shows like Jersey Shore or Real Housewives.

Your using Paul Krugman. Really you might as well a tee shirt saying

" I'm dumber that a bag of hammers."


2% administration cost? How is that calculated? Does that include the lovable 16 thousand IRS agents, Like we need more IRS thugs. And if you need 16,000 IRS police to make sure that you pay how many other administration jobs are needed for all the other parts of OBAMA CARE? It just doesn't add up.

Dude take off the rose colored glasses.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@bobknight33
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/administrative-costs/
"However, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage."
This shows you don't know or care what the fuck you're talking about.
I've seen you be reasonable about stuff. This one of things you should be reasonable about.
You trollin' motherfucker.