Fear is the mind killer (like the Dune fella says), it' s the mound-killer, too; Us human ants are polluting the ball with our senseless bullshit, air,water,and raw materials can take care of themselves.

Bugs Bunny an' Road Runner-Styley!

...well fuck me, a ruler and a mound of dirt and a little detonator with some tape! Chinese FTW!

I recommend you put down the studies and use your brain. Humans who walk and or run everyday sometimes for dozens of miles don't weigh 300 pounds. They just don't I don't care what study you think proves that someone with giant mounds of fat attached to their skeleton lived back in a hunter gatherer society. It's JUST NOT FUCKING TRUE. You don't get 40% body fat from running and eating nuts.
>> ^LarsaruS:

>>I recommend reading this study comparing a hunter gatherer society's energy expenditure to western society.
Also look at this meta study regarding energy expenditure and activity level and its relation to obesity.

that mound of dirt is really a trampoline.

though I bet that short guy could still dunk in the nba...

>> ^longde:

I'll only accept that argument from vegans. The rest of us humans inflict horrible suffering on animals (or directly benefit from it) all the time. I think what the data referenced above shows is that many or most people who are sadistic fiends have once hurt animals, not the opposite, that most people who hurt animals will turn into sadistic fiends (unproven, but could be true).
What separates a cat from a cockroach? Both are animals, right? I have horribly murdered so many cockroaches and flies it's ridiculous. I knew kids who used to kick over or flood ant mounds. Lemme check facebook...yep, all psychopaths.
The reason doesn't matter if the concern is for the suffering of sentient beings, right? So, what about sport hunters? Butchers? Livestock Farmers? Chefs? You get the point. All these people inflict great pain on animals. I guess my whole extended family are closet ax murderers, since it contains sport hunters, sport fishermen, people who raise and slaughter hogs, etc.....and people who used to go to Red Lobster on weekends.
I myself don't think cats are any more entitled than hogs, deer, chickens, lobsters and cows...or flies and cockroaches. And certainly not on the same level as humans (which too many people believe). So, while I recognize that cats et al suffer, feel empathy and would never hurt any animal (I don't even like killing spiders now; even at the behest of my wife) ; I can't get as worked up over this as some of you are.

(BTW, this conversation reminds me of the Lawrence Block story "How would you like it?")
edit: except mosquitoes. >> ^Gallowflak:
>> ^longde:
I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.
>> ^Jinx:
Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.


What does it show? That they're able to inflict horrible suffering on a creature without being halted by such measly things as compassion or empathy. An act like this is a huge warning sign that we're dealing with a morally bankrupt piece of shit, at the least, or psychopath, at the worst.
A human being without empathy who acts immorally is someone who, if rehabilitation isn't possible, the community needs to get rid of.



Yes, we all benefit from the suffering of animals, that's true, but there's not an equivalence between that and inflicting it oneself.

There's a vast difference between animals suffering as a consequence of an action that has utility and inflicting suffering for its own sake.

I'll only accept that argument from vegans. The rest of us humans inflict horrible suffering on animals (or directly benefit from it) all the time. I think what the data referenced above shows is that many or most people who are sadistic fiends have once hurt animals, not the opposite, that most people who hurt animals will turn into sadistic fiends (unproven, but could be true).

What separates a cat from a cockroach? Both are animals, right? I have horribly murdered so many cockroaches and flies it's ridiculous. I knew kids who used to kick over or flood ant mounds. Lemme check facebook...yep, all psychopaths.

The reason doesn't matter if the concern is for the suffering of sentient beings, right? So, what about sport hunters? Butchers? Livestock Farmers? Chefs? You get the point. All these people inflict great pain on animals. I guess my whole extended family are closet ax murderers, since it contains sport hunters, sport fishermen, people who raise and slaughter hogs, etc.....and people who used to go to Red Lobster on weekends.

I myself don't think cats are any more entitled than hogs, deer, chickens, lobsters and cows...or flies and cockroaches. And certainly not on the same level as humans (which too many people believe). So, while I recognize that cats et al suffer, feel empathy and would never hurt any animal (I don't even like killing spiders now; even at the behest of my wife)*; I can't get as worked up over this as some of you are.


(BTW, this conversation reminds me of the Lawrence Block story "How would you like it?")

*edit: except mosquitoes. >> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^longde:
I think its inhumane, but cat's aren't people. Doing this to a cat does not necessarily mean they could do it to a person, IMO.
>> ^Jinx:
Psychopath. Honestly, if you can be that cruel to an animal I don't really believe they won't do it to a human. Just a complete lack of empathy.


What does it show? That they're able to inflict horrible suffering on a creature without being halted by such measly things as compassion or empathy. An act like this is a huge warning sign that we're dealing with a morally bankrupt piece of shit, at the least, or psychopath, at the worst.
A human being without empathy who acts immorally is someone who, if rehabilitation isn't possible, the community needs to get rid of.

free style climbing is just ridiculous, it makes those climbers that use ropes look like pansies, and those that don't climb look like quivering mounds of jelly.

Yes it is, I only said he reminded me of Brendan.
Thanks for the vote, too (heavy sarcasm).
>> ^StukaFox:

I'm pretty sure the singer is Scott Walker.

looks like distortion caused by some liquid near the camera (on lens or window). Some sort of light diffraction is happening like when you look out your wet windshield and see how the little mounds of water on the windshield distort the image.

-karl

it is probably not due to china's political system, per se... rather chinese culture. i have seen and even experienced the same in taiwan, which is democratic. the culture simply puts less value on a human life and welfare than many westerners do... you can see it in their medical system (universal health care is not what you might think here), and even the elderly, many of whom begin to feel they are simply a burden on their families, who will purposefully cause accidents to either end their lives or to bring some kind of "income" to their families. once when i was going home late here in china, i saw what appeared to be a shadowy mound of garbage in the middle of the street. i thought to myself, "damn, that is dangerous." so i stopped to move it closer to the sidewalk. turns out it was a nonagenarian scavenger woman who had been struck by a car. i phoned 119 (their 911) and tried to comfort her as best i could. soon there was a small crowd, and then the police and ambulance arrived. the police asked what happened, and all the chinese said i hit her. the paramedics revived her enough for her to confirm that it was me who struck her. can you believe it? they were all ready to take me in when i managed to make the point of her injuries being inconsistent with my riding my bicycle home in the opposite direction. now, before making comparisons with our overly litigious societies, keep in mind that 99% of their lawsuits are 'settled' on the spot... and in cash.

Since the mounds of evidence and overwhelming consensus of experts has failed to sway AGW deniers, I can only hope this common sense approach works better.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I voted for the sentement of this message, but this wasn't reporting, this was propaganda. I believe this propaganda already, so its appealing. But go back and listen to the wording. Is it the place of news to use the term "fat cat"? Does that demonstrate journalistic integrity, I don't personally think so. Then again, those wall street fat cat deserve it, oops.


I agree however if you compared what's in the mainstream media to this you couldn't even begin to say this is counter balancing it. There's mountains of propaganda vs this little mound...although they shouldn't try to compete with propaganda they should try to shine a light on it.

I'll give ya a shiny loonie to rub your naked ballsack on that mound!

>> ^SDGundamX:

Hey, thanks for the links... every single one of which refutes your original point that:
"it was an act of defiance, not pacifism..."
I think you're a bit confused about what "pacifism" means. Pacifism is not against defiance; pacifism is against the use of violence to achieve political or personal aims. For example, Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus was both defiant and pacifist in nature--she used non-violent means to protest the unjust laws of that time. Turning the other cheek--in the historical sense you described--therefore is indeed both an act of defiance and pacifist in nature.
So @ChaosEngine 's original point stands--people who are Christian and support the death penalty would seem to indeed be ignoring Christ's teachings (in addition to the mounds of evidence that show the death penalty is neither cost effective nor a strong deterrent to crime).

It's pacifism-compatible because it's not calling for violence. It's not, however, an instruction to let all transgressions slide as so many people believe.

As for @ChaosEngine's point, I do not disagree with it and was not trying to tear it down. I just think the "turn the other cheek" part doesn't support it very well.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"?
In those days, you would strike someone of lower social standing with the back of your left hand. If they turned their head to the left, exposing the right cheek, it would force the aggressor to punch them, slap them with the palm, or use the right hand. These are actions that would be used to challenge someone of equal standing. By turning the other cheek, you were forcing them to either treat you as an equal or stop assaulting you.
It was an act of defiance, not pacifism, and does not really support your argument.

Uh huh...and where is this documented? Because it could be utter bullshit.

It seems I got the left/right hand part mixed up, but the point stands...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_3_29/ai_n11838798/
http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2009/01/13/what-does-t
urn-the-other-cheek-really-mean/
http://www.zcommunications.org/christian-nonviolence-by-walter-wink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek


Hey, thanks for the links... every single one of which refutes your original point that:

"it was an act of defiance, not pacifism..."

I think you're a bit confused about what "pacifism" means. Pacifism is not against defiance; pacifism is against the use of violence to achieve political or personal aims. For example, Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus was both defiant and pacifist in nature--she used non-violent means to protest the unjust laws of that time. Turning the other cheek--in the historical sense you described--therefore is indeed both an act of defiance and pacifist in nature.

So @ChaosEngine 's original point stands--people who are Christian and support the death penalty would seem to indeed be ignoring Christ's teachings (in addition to the mounds of evidence that show the death penalty is neither cost effective nor a strong deterrent to crime).