>> ^kymbos:

How long till we completely disassociate meat from animals?


I'm pretty sure that's already happened, at least the meat packing companies hope so. It's not cow, it's "beef", it's now chicken, it's "poultry", it's not pig, it's "pork" - even the wording forces some disassociation.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but compared with what I consider "literature" I think her books are crap. "Da Vinci Code" is crap for a completely different reason. I thought her stories were poorly constructed, they were merely a delivery system so that she could explain her philosophy. Like I said, if her philosophy was at all redeeming,then maybe she would get points for that.

I would compare it to "The Jungle." In the middle of "The Jungle" the story pretty much stops so the author can describe how horrible the meat-packing industry was, and then it turns into a communist manifesto. So, story-wise, it's also weak, but because its working towards a social change that was needed at the time, I think there was some merit in that.

I don't have a problem with some people being talented or different. Rand's philosophy (Objectivism) doesn't just allow for some people to be different, it says that if you are successful, you deserve more rights. It's circular reasoning. You're successful because you're better than everyone else - How do we know you're better? Because you're successful. And everyone else should just shut up and go to work for the rich people, because they know better.

Dan Brown doesn't write well at all, but I don't think he is trying to make any larger commentary about society.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^LukinStone:
I have a big problem with Rand's philosophies too. But, what I think is most revealing is how poorly constructed her books are. It's not like she constructs this epic fiction that's a veiled analogy for her ideas. Her characters just spout their nonsense, as a mouthpiece for her.
If she had the exact same ideas but wrote a good story, I could at least see her value as a writer. All of these political figures who cite her as writing their "favorite" book make me wonder what they're comparing it to.

I liked her books, didn't seem like such a stretch that there are some people who are different. Doesn't make them better just makes them who they are. I read tons of books, and if I had to compare her books to any current fiction I would say they're way better than the shit that is "The Di Vinci Code" so they hold up just fine.

>> ^Drax:
Westy, I'm against animal cruelty where I see it. Yes there are despicably animal meat packing plants, but there's been a shift in treating animals more humanely over here. Maybe it's a small smart, I dunno. Whatever it is it's a good start. And I bet there's at least one vegetarian amongst the video sift crew. I have several who are friends.
I see an organized dog fighting competition and I have an ill reaction to it.
You don't, least in this case.
I'm not going to stand on some moral high ground and chastise you for your lack of empathy or anyone else, because yes there's a humorous side to this video. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, and that doesn't mean I think any less of anyone who laughed at the dogs going at it in 'I'm a r'over nor't a fighr'ter' sort of dog way.
You're the one being an asshat here right now though. If I don't think the same exact way you do about something controversial, I'm fail. Apparently also I'm a pussy.
Better then being an asshole. ,,i,,



I dont see how i am the ass hat im not the one saying the video should be banned ,

All i have pionted to is some people are retarded for getting all emotoinal and some how coming to a conclusoin that the video is an endorsemnt of dog fighting.

Westy, I'm against animal cruelty where I see it. Yes there are despicably animal meat packing plants, but there's been a shift in treating animals more humanely over here. Maybe it's a small smart, I dunno. Whatever it is it's a good start. And I bet there's at least one vegetarian amongst the video sift crew. I have several who are friends.

I see an organized dog fighting competition and I have an ill reaction to it.

You don't, least in this case.

I'm not going to stand on some moral high ground and chastise you for your lack of empathy or anyone else, because yes there's a humorous side to this video. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, and that doesn't mean I think any less of anyone who laughed at the dogs going at it in 'I'm a r'over nor't a fighr'ter' sort of dog way.

You're the one being an asshat here right now though. If I don't think the same exact way you do about something controversial, I'm fail. Apparently also I'm a pussy.

Better then being an asshole. ,,i,,

>> ^ShakaUVM:
@<A rel="nofollow" href="http://www.videosift.com/member/rougy" title="member since June 3rd, 2007" class="profilelink">rougy: Dude, talk about a non-sequitor. I said that conservatives help poor people more, and they do indeed give more to charity. You responded with something about Michael Eisner exploiting people, and I pointed out he's a liberal, and that big corporations love big government. (Why? Because regulation hurts small businesses more. After The Jungle came out, all the large meat packing corporations lobbied FOR more regulations. Didn't know that, eh?) I'm not sure how you read that as me trying to disprove the wages paid to Haitians or whatever.
You also think that taxing fishing companies more would somehow improve the lot of people in American Samoa, when it would actually do what taxes have always done to fishing companies - push them even further overseas, thus hurting those that your bleeding heart is trying to protect. Taxes and regulations annihilated the fishing and canning industry here in San Diego.


You don't seem to know much about anything from where I'm sitting.

Wow, conservatives give more pennies to the poor. How nice. But they'll bitch a blue streak if they have to pay them a living wage.

And Eisner is a liberal, because all good liberals pay Haitians 28 cents an hour.

I don't know what you're reading, but it's totally screwed up your head.

No offense.

@rougy: Dude, talk about a non-sequitor. I said that conservatives help poor people more, and they do indeed give more to charity. You responded with something about Michael Eisner exploiting people, and I pointed out he's a liberal, and that big corporations love big government. (Why? Because regulation hurts small businesses more. After The Jungle came out, all the large meat packing corporations lobbied FOR more regulations. Didn't know that, eh?) I'm not sure how you read that as me trying to disprove the wages paid to Haitians or whatever.

You also think that taxing fishing companies more would somehow improve the lot of people in American Samoa, when it would actually do what taxes have always done to fishing companies - push them even further overseas, thus hurting those that your bleeding heart is trying to protect. Taxes and regulations annihilated the fishing and canning industry here in San Diego.

I was once going to send in a local newspaper job advert from my friendly local meat packing plant, it read "Trainee Boners Wanted". I kid you not!

I wish people would get a clue... God has nothing to do with anything. Except maybe in your imagination. So the 'all powerful creator of the universe' can't do something about spoiling meat, but the meat packing industry and FDA can by sticking a 4 Ford's tailpipe down the throat of a dead cow. LOL.