I love civil liberties.

I wish the 'float all boats' rhetoric was as taken to heart as its claimed to be.

In that regard, negatively invoking the NRA requires some cognitive dissonance. NRA members are regular people, and they're all around. 1/3 of U.S. homes are armed. The NRA guards those people's rights. That's why the NRA is so strong.

Civil liberties also includes the freedom of expression. That's at odds with curtailing anti-<name a group> rhetoric.

I'm all for maximal civil liberties. But folks need to realize that it involves letting others live their lives in a way that you might not like - and that you might be living a life that others don't like.

I'm ok with that. But there are a lot of people that can't stand other people going about their own business in a disapproved of manner. And there are a lot of people that can't stand being disliked (even when left alone). These sorts of people inevitably cause problems when they feel compelled to do something about how other people live.

-scheherazade

@bareboards2 Ma'am, I apologize both for the factually untrue statement, which I made without keeping with proper English debate/conversation etiquette, and also for assuming a gender for you title without proper evaluation.

To make clear my position, as I believe many, if not all of you here (@PlayhousePals @newtboy @Januari @bareboards2) mistake my position and/or personal political siding...

Firstly, I DO NOT like Trump, his policies, his manner, his monomaniacal bent towards the topics he figures are worth his time to address, not much of anything, actually.

Secondly, yes, I am conservative, and for a young male in British society, this leaves me at rather an odd way with those of an opposing political bent, particularly those of the Liberal/Progressive variety(Liberal less so, as it is an off-take of Libertarianism). I believe that effectually bending society over backwards to meet the stresses of a brave new world is a brash and undeveloped concept. I believe the perfect society is a logical one, where all that are able are held to an advantageously high level of acumen, education, etiquette, state of public dress, etc. I do not believe in the idea of "Utopia", as basic human psychology(which I have the equivalent of the american bachelors degree in) denies the facet of a cohesive human culture/society.

Thirdly, I arrive in support of Trump not out of a liking for him or his policy, but an awareness of what the enaction of his policies would bring. This awareness is spawned by the awareness of the state of the American Political Establishment, as is governed by people with power beyond reckoning, the face of which happens to be Hillary Clinton. Trump's policies, if allowed to be implemented, would cause such as rift in the political establishment/climate, as well as the hearts and minds of the American people, as to bring about change.

So, in effect, I support Trump for the very reason many of you don't, the Chaos that would almost inevitably ensue. A chaos that would likely go unnoticed, as such shifts occur without common knowledge...

Or... You could vote for a woman who has on more occasions than is accountable, broken Federal Law, covered up her husband's brutalization of women, and God knows what else, and only manages to escape prison because she is one of the sharpest tools the totalitarian American political establishment has...

@Payback -- The Youtube comments area is not to be considered a potential source of rational discussion.

Assume that one concedes to your point about "terminal velocity" being the wrong phrase to use here. What would be better? And I'll note that there are many potential metrics for "better" -- conveying the correct idea precisely, doing so in a concise manner, etc.

"Neodymium Magnets Reaching a Velocity at Which the Centrifugal Force Upon Them Exceeds the Magnetic Force Holding Them Together" makes for a more accurate title, but might lose brevity points. The "Terminal Velocity" title conveys maybe only 75% of the accuracy of the more precise title, but with a greater than 25% savings in length (5 words vs 19). Although I'm sure a more optimally brief AND accurate title exists.

Not trying to be snarky, and I 100% agree that there are situations where saying something with complete accuracy and careful precision is extremely important. But perhaps an online video about magnets spinning apart can be at least partially excused for opting for brevity over accuracy, especially in something as trivial as the title. Especially when the inaccuracy can be noted and explained in the comments section by well meaning viewers.

There is actually an argument that our brains are three due to the way the frontal cortex works. (not the "triune brain" which is a different idea)

The frontal part can exercise control over the two hemispheres and is about as close as we have gotten to identifying where free will comes from. Certainly, in people who have had frontal brain damage there appears to be a direct link to lack of impulse control.
Almost every serial killer in history appears to have had some manner of frontal brain trauma at some stage in their lives and the link to delinquency is fairly well documented by this stage.

The latest research suggests consciousness itself is a fractal programme running co-operatively across the brain, but it remains pretty obscure none the less. The frontal cortex is split between left and right hemispheres, but it certain appears to behave as one in healthy brains.

The best way I could describe it is that the left and right represent the animistic unconsidered side of our behaviour and desires as we see in most animals (interacting via the corpus callosum that connects them). With the frontal cortex seeming to represent the higher functions that allow us to harness the rest of our brain in more considered and abstract ways (presumably also split into left and right).

I think of it like the foreman directing the other divisions of the factory but staying largely hands off when considered decisions don't need to be made.

All of the above is a gross oversimplification though. We can guess at the basis for free will, but it remains elusive.

So, let's stop pretending "the friend zone" is solely the realm of socially stunted, fedora wearing, Menanists. That's tired old internet group-think.

What it really means is being in a relationship in which there's a perceived benefit by both parties to maintain close social contact, yet the depth of emotional attachment is unbalanced.

At it's worst, one or both parties in the relationship may be acting in a manner that disregards the others feelings. Maybe one person is pushing way too hard or one is taking advantage of the other. But this negative element doesn't have to always be the case and is more a sign of emotional immaturity.
Plus, I have news for you...YOU were also emotionally immature in a relationship at some point. Maybe you still are but it's working for you so you don't take notice.

Our emotional side and our logical side don't always see eye to eye. Because of this, we're all in danger of finding ourselves really attracted to someone who doesn't return our feelings. How this plays out between the two parties depends on their unique combination of personality, personal awareness, empathy, self respect...and so many other things.

So, if you're in a relationship like this, there are lots of good logical ways that you can approach the situation that may be really hard given your non-logical, emotionally driven, perspective. There's lots of good advice that can be given too if you know someone involved like this. And it's probably better addressed sooner than later.

But disregarding people's humanity and drawing them as stunted and potentially dangerous monsters....says more about you than it does the person in "the friend zone".

The simple point is that you are not superior. You have made a lifestyle choice because you wanted to. You have no solid scientific evidence that food animals are fully sentient. Both dogs and pigs routinely fail self-awareness tests, they may be intelligent and able to learn, but they ARE NOT PEOPLE. Vegans want us to believe that eating a pig is tantamount to eating a 3 year old baby, and simply isn't. You are certainly welcome to your opinion on the subject, but that is all.

Now to address your issue with how people treat vegans. I know that I have never went out of my way to lambaste a vegan for choosing to be vegan. I will, and have, severely castigate vegans who start telling me that they are superior to other people because they choose to not eat meat. How can you not see that having the attitude that you are better than someone else because of your choices is not the same manner of thinking that leads to church people condemning people for not following their ethos?

So, let me ask you, how many people have given you shit for being vegan out of the blue? For instance, you were minding your own business and eating a salad, then a person jumped in your face and said "How dare you eat that salad next to me?" I'm willing to bet you might have gotten some gentle ribbing if you went to a friend's barbecue and asked for a vegan option, but I doubt anyone got in your face about it. On the other hand, I have absolutely had more than one vegan get in my face and tell me that I am a murderer and a beast because I ate a hamburger at a desk across from them or sat down at a table with some brisket without making sure it wasn't a 'meat-free' zone.

The sheer chutzpah that most vegans have towards non-vegans is what makes them a target for ridicule. I get it, you think you are better than us, but we wouldn't care if you didn't feel the need to trot it out every five seconds.

Absolutely not a straw man when the statement it contradicts was "The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world.”
At what point do you decide (for yourself, the only one you get to decide for) 'sentience' exists? Shrimp? Crabs? If so, then logically also mosquitos, gnats, and ticks.
Also, why have YOU decided so capriciously that 'sentience' is the measure of a life's worth? What, if anything, do you base that decision on? Perhaps a sense of biological superiority?

BUT you insist others adopt YOUR definitions of non violence, oppression, exploitation, others, property.

Again, you insist that "every human believes" something you believe. That's absolutely not true of ANYTHING, and totally wrong about this topic...clearly. It clearly doesn't 'when it concerns humans' or we wouldn't be murdering and torturing each other as we are.

We clearly disagree that animal consumption is the MAIN issue globally....just as we clearly disagree that it's even a possibility for humanity to switch to a purely vegetarian diet...pasture land is not the same as farmable land.

There are certainly ecological issues with meat production on the scale and in the manner we do it today...there was no such issue when the population being fed was 1/10 what it is today....no one burned massive portions of the rainforests to raise cattle 150 years ago, they didn't need to.

When I see a video like this that highlights people being kind to animalS (the dog AND the bird) it's disturbing that people are so disconnected with normalcy that they see a connection with murder and torture....or that they see murder and torture where it doesn't exist, and disturbing that they feel the need to shit on the happy video comments with a 'but you're all murdering bastards...feel bad and capitulate'.

Yeah, again, I don't click random links, and I don't get science from the internet, no need to read any vegan propaganda. Thanks

Ask 10 people on the street if they think it's OK to humanely raise animals for consumption, 9.95 of them will say "yes".
Now you are equating intentional harm with unintentional harm, equating intentional frivolous casual injuring and killing for pleasure with occasional unintentional injuring and killing for an essential purpose.

I love this. Not only is it a fantastic debunk of some shoddy science - in a scientific manner no less! And it's also really good betting; just play the odds. They're stacked in his favour, win or lose he put his money in a profitable position.

While ultimately being "pro encryption" (which I 100% agree with), that video did a very good job of presenting the arguments of the opposing side in a pretty rational and much-more-convincing-than-usual manner.

Good on them for being *more* persuasive by giving a fair and honest take on both sides.

I think perhaps your reading comprehension is lacking, not my logic.
I guess you missed the part where I mentioned the overworked employees being worked into a stupor...or didn't understand that it's because they have to work 2 or 3 full time jobs to afford both food and shelter that they are overworked zombies, unable to think well enough to stop the other higher ranking employees from instructing them to do stupid things. Increase the base pay so full time employees can afford food and shelter in the area they work in (or near) and you increase base competence because they no longer have to work 120 hour work weeks to survive.

AHHHH, but those at the top HAVE had their 'wages' go up far more than inflation, but not those at the bottom who would be making about $22 an hour if minimum wages were tied to inflation since their start.
A rising tide lifts all ships, OK, except for those already artificially 'lifted' WAY above the tide line. If all 'ships' floated on the tide, that saying would mean something. They don't.
OK, I'll go there, lets say everyone deserves to make >3 times what they used to make when the national minimum wage was started. That means a HUGE pay cut for those at the top, probably a 90%+ pay cut in most cases. Do that, and there's no problem at all affording the cost of paying the bottom 50% a living wage, which means anyone working full time is paid above the poverty line, no exceptions.
Yes, doing that will raise prices, which will require raising wages, which will raise prices...IF the top don't stop taking an obscenely unfair slice of the pie. If THEY pay themselves in the same manner they pay employees, there's no problem. They won't though.

*promote
This is important information about the destruction of our election processes.
Far from 'transparent and upfront', this is one more example of a single candidate misusing their power to attempt to secretly sway the pre-election in their favor, and a clear indication that SOME believe in an 'ends justify the means' type of administration.
Scary to think of what might happen if they run the country in this same manner.

EDIT: Doing the numbers, if you take out the super delegates, or assume they'll mirror the voters as they normally do, Sanders only needs 56% of the remaining vote/delegates to win, and that's a likelihood at this point. Fingers crossed, knock on wood, may we all be touched by his noodley appendage.

you are once again mistaken. only approximately 10% of non-human animals are obligate carnivores. common sense tells you that it cannot be a high number as it would not be sustainable otherwise.

factory farmed or not, other sentient beings suffer and die for no other reason than a momentary taste sensation. unlike the Masai (of whom i have never heard of but am taking your word) all you have to do to greatly lessen the harm you do to others is to buy different products in the grocery store.

speaking of science, here is what a very wise man had to say on this subject:

“It is my view that the vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind.”—Albert Einstein

“Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.”—Albert Einstein

“Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature. If the whole world adopts vegetarianism, it can change the destiny of mankind.”—Albert Einstein

“If a man aspires towards a righteous life, his first act of abstinence is from injury to animals.” -Albert Einstein

My mistake.
I'll admit, his delivery is going down hill these days. I've been a fan for a LONG time, but he's not as good as he once was by far.
I get especially annoyed when he gets upset when his audience groans at a bad taste joke, it's like he doesn't understand that's a POSITIVE reaction to a bad taste joke, and indicates his audience understands it's in bad taste. You would think he would know that after 3+ decades in snarky 'comedy'.

To your points....
When a parent takes the kids side over the teachers....well, that depends on what the issue is, but on it's face that's also coddling. The implication/infrence is that it would be about the child's behavior in class, or their academic performance, and in either case taking the child's side over the teacher is teaching them that they are more important than the authority, and/or that their word is going to be taken over an adult in authority, and their POV or opinion is the only one that matters. That's terrible, and sets them up for failure and/or prison later.
Not telling a child to shut the fuck up when they are rudely interrupting adults DOES breed poorly mannered narcissists, as it's teaching the child that what they have to say is the MOST important thing, far more important than the adult discussion they are interrupting. That's terrible, bad manners, completely unrealistic, and not good for the child's development into a decent human being. Children are not adults, and 99.9% of the time what they want to say/ask is not important. Even in those rare cases where it is important, not teaching them to not interrupt creates mannerless narcissistic douchebags that never allow other people to speak and believe their every fleeting thought is golden.
Asking a kid where they want to go to dinner....OK, that's stupid. If you just ask them, the child isn't automatically in control. If you always ask them at every meal and defer to their whim over the wishes of adults (which is what I think he meant, but not what he said), that's coddling and breeding a narcissist that believes his is the only opinion that matters to anyone and should always take precedent over other's needs/wants.

"Every time a parent takes the kids side over the teachers,
or asks a child where THEY want to go to dinner,
or doesn't say 'be quiet' when adults are talking,
you are creating the Donald Trumps of tomorrow"

Yes, and every time a parent says to a child "I've told you a million times not to exaggerate" they are creating the Bill Mahers of tomorrow; hyperbolic hypocrites who pretend to be liberal, but are actually just stupid.

FFS Bill, the 1950s called and they want their antiquated parenting ideals back.

Absolutely, a child has to accept that there are right and wrong answers and 2+2=5 is not little Johnny "expressing himself". It's fine for the kids to say they'd LIKE to go to McDonalds, but they don't get to make the final decision. And kids also need to learn how to have a conversation with people and basic manners (i.e. don't interrupt).

But we all know teachers are never wrong! Heaven forfend that a child actually question one.

And having a child take an interest in food? That's preposterous!

And finally, kids should absolutely learn that their opinions don't matter because of their age, and that they should sit down and STFU.