I find your second point more convincing.

Animals are serial rapists. I'm not sure why our diets should be informed by them. Clearly our teeth, and a great many other things, are pretty good clues to what we have historically eaten.

However. I love bacon, but I'm pretty sure I'd eat a lot less bacon if I had to occasionally slaughter a pig to get it. I don't have a moral objection to eating meat, I have an objection (and I am a hypocrite here to boot) with the almost hedonistic way we pay others to do the dirty work so that we might satiate our appetite. Where once our appetite for meat served as the necessary motivation in the face of the considerable effort we had to expend to get it, now I walk for 10 minutes, pay the equivalent of perhaps 10 minutes of my wage, and voilà, chicken ready to eat.

All of this would be "so what" if it were not for the environmental and health impacts this imbalance might cause, as well as the suffering we cause animals in our pursuit to ever drive down the price of flesh.

But yeah, if you have a small list of things you can eat affordably, and meat is one of them then, yeah, it's a bit different. I am fortunate enough to be fairly unrestricted in what I can eat...and yet I still choose to buy animal corpses wrapped in plastic. I'm trying to cut down though!

“Passively accepting these beliefs, carnists take pride in eating “cage- free” eggs, hams from “free” pigs, cheese from the milk belonging to “humanely raised” cow’s calves, and legs from “free” dead chickens. These consumers have become washed into believing that a little improvement in egg, meat, and dairy production has stopped the harm. They settle for the slight inconvenience of choosing and paying for a different box of eggs or a non-factory-farmed slab of meat. They believe in happy death, happy meat fantasies, and thus find escape from doing what is really needed. They avoid true and effective personal change.”-Will Anderson

of course in some ways they are different but when it comes to suffering and death, a cow is a pig is a chicken is a dog.

if you wish to become educated on this subject rather than buying into the myths and lies of our culture and society, i suggest you read this short essay:
http://freefromharm.org/animal-products-and-ethics/killing-animals-imaginary-solutions/

So you HATE President Carter then, eh? If all animals are equally important, sentient, intelligent, and emotional, it must simply kill you that he's trying to eradicate an entire species, right?

Social Justice Warriors are invariably self centered ignorant asshats. Don't be one.

Please take a biology class, then try again.
Vegans get ridiculed because they make ridiculous statements like "the only difference between the dogs you love and the cows, chickens and pigs you eat is your perception".
...or are YOU only as intelligent as a gnat? Because if all animals are the same, that's what you're saying. ;-)

The thing about "truth" is, it has to be true. Your statement is simply insane. Animals are different from other different animals.

veganism is about social justice and non-violence. the only difference between the dogs you love and the cows, chickens and pigs you eat is your perception. vegans get ridiculed due to people's lack of awareness and false perceptions- just as anti-slavery activists were ridiculed in the antebellum south for suggesting the moral equivalence between white people and black people. i believe Arthur Schopenhauer said it best:
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

“The only difference between a dog, cat, horse and dolphin and a cow, chicken, pig and turkey is perception. One is no more valuable than another. And yet in this culture, we hold the former animals in high esteem and the latter we brutalize for food. All animals are deserving of respect and freedom from violence. The way to respect others is veganism.

Oh yeah, I forgot, it was a while ago on another thread, but that still doesn't answer why you think being one precludes being the other. ;-)
EDIT: I hope you notice that I didn't actually CALL you either a pig or Palin, I simply asked if you were either (or both). ;-)

1)all we have are test results showing how they failed multiple tests of it's required capabilities, and other reports saying the military changed the test requirements after the fact to turn those 'fails' into 'barely passed the tests'.
2) mostly, yes. Not 100%. For the most part, the general media does not have a real understanding of anything they 'report'.
3) I'm making claims about it becoming obsolete in <10 years, not repeating any media claim, based on past lifespans of electronic secrets. It's more prone to obsolesce than previous planes because it's main, and really only 'claim to fame' (as you've repeatedly said) are it's electronics, both stealth and targeting, and when those are 'gone' it's a flying golden pig. I think giving it 10 years is really being quite generous, secrets rarely last that long these days.

You asked if I was a pig some food related thread. And I said yes and posted a picture of me in the Bahamas

I totally agree that the development and costs are ridiculous. I honestly don't care if the plane sucks or not(although I would rather my taxes be wasted on a functional plane at least!), but the reason I'm taking the time to reply is because I think the performance and capability concerns of the plane are unfounded for these reason:


1. Nobody can say for certain what the F-35 is capable of or not capable of. It's all classified. There are simply no facts or data that the public has access to. Anything the public sees is watered down a lot, and I think this is where the majority of confusion is coming from. Not one article I've seen can tell you 1 specific bit of information about why it's a bad plane. Because there is no data. They'll say it's bad, and then start going on about congressional corruption (which is legitimate, but nothing to do with the planes capabilities).

2. The general media does not have an understanding of how air combat really works.

3. Nobody can predict the future, so the media making claims about certain things becoming obsolete is just a guess, and quite often irrelevant. They also seem to ignore the fact the F-35 if it becomes obsolete in 10 years, then so have all of the 40 year old planes. All anyone can do is be prepared for the things they know about, because it's not possible to be prepared for something that you don't know about.

That is the logic I am thinking with anyway. It's sensationalism vs corporate propaganda, and there is no way to tell who is right since there is no data.

Um...who called you a pig? The voices in your head? Certainly not me. I don't know why you would say you can't be both though. That's just silly. ;-)


That's a pretty big 'If it can' that's already been proven to be an 'it can't'. Even IF it did everything it was supposed to, yes, it's 10 years too late and at least double an acceptable price tag, and still not ready for prime time, or even the 2am slot.
Yes, modification happens, but the idea is not to produce something that needs to be modified out of the box in order to do anything well.
No, many bombers are in use that were designed as bombers. Sorry, but that's just wrong.
Once again, the idea of the F-35 doesn't grant air superiority, neither does a few of these planes, especially if we are too afraid to lose a $200+ million plane so we just don't use them, which is the most likely outcome. It is in NO way a deterrent to full scale war with any foe we might ever use it against, like Russia. If it was some magic anti-war bullet, that might be money well spent, but is simply isn't in any way and NEVER will be, so that argument is just silly.
In 10 years, the stealth properties of this plane will be 5 years past obsolete....and it may STILL not be in the air.
There are no countries with air forces that can come close to ours, not one. I don't think there's even a group of 10 nations combined that come close to ours. We will NEVER be in a fair fight excepting a nuclear one where every one dies, and we'll still out nuke everyone else 10-1, it just won't matter.
Yes, Trump likely would take us to war, that's no reason to waste more money on unneeded weapons for a possible, unknown, unlikely future conflict with an unknown, unestimated enemy.
Still testing....and still testing....and still testing....$1.3 TRILLION later.....Still testing (and failing those tests)....still testing...still testing. Eventually it should be admitted that it's a failure, more testing won't help (it hasn't yet), and quit throwing mountains of good money after bad.
No, it doesn't. It's TASKED with all the same stuff the aging, multi types of planes do, but it can't do it. Stealth is not something new, BTW, we have many stealth planes already, better ones that work.
Again, out of the box needing to be upgraded is a fail. A massive, indisputable fail. That an engine powerful enough to move this pig like other planes already can doesn't exist should tell you something. It's aerodynamic....great....that's one part of a dozen that have to fit together.
The price tag is multiplied 10 fold because it has a pilot.
You want them to eventually pass ALL required tests...not fail them all, then change the parameters so it isn't canceled.
Nope...Warthog.
Not so far. So far, other stealth planes do what it's supposed to...better. Upgrading them is clearly a better plan.
Not true. All I hear is 'it sucks' because I don't read Lockheed Martin's press releases. When you look at test results, it sucks. When you look at price, it sucks. When you look at upkeep, it sucks ass. When you look at a fleet of them doing everything a dozen different planes today do, we're bankrupt and far less capable militarily, and that sucks.

But it seems no amount of logic and results will dissuade you from your love of this unmitigated debacle. That's your choice, but you aren't convincing anyone else to go along with you.

LOL I can't be a pig and Sarah Palin at the same time. Make up your mind

Those are all valid criticisms, but nobody apart from the flight engineers and test pilots truly know whether this plane is a lemon or not. If it does everything it's supposed to do, then it's exactly what the military asked for, just 10 years too late....

Any suitability and fit for purpose criticism that anyone has ever come up with for the F-35 also applies to just about any piece of military equipment that has been created in the last 70 years. Engineering is a balancing act, and an iterative process. Almost every aircraft, and vehicle in the military today was built to fight a soviet army. Luckily that never happened. But that means that most aircraft and vehicles in the military today have been grossly modified to make them fit for a different purpose. The F-35 will probably go through this as well over the next 30 years, because it's a normal part of the life-cycle of military equipment. Almost every plane dropping bombs now was previously designed as a fighter. But nobody ever calls them out for being mutants like they do with the F-35, they call it additional capability. The F-35 was born with these capabilities instead of being added over time.


Expensive: I'll agree. Could the money have been spent better else where? Definitely. You could argue that the cost is tiny compared to that of a full scale war, maybe F-35 is a good deterrent. Air superiority is the key to winning a war. If you're going to spend money then that's where it should be spent. When the oceans rise enough, is a country like Indonesia going to lash out and try to take land and resources for their civilians? Maybe. I doubt all 200 million of them will just stand there and starve. (Ok I'll concede, this does make me sound a bit like Palin. But hopefully not as dumb )
They could have probably made 3 different stealth planes for 1/2 the cost, but that has it's own strategic downsides. You have to have the right assets in the right places or you have to spread them quite thinly. With a multi-role plane you have all of the capabilities everywhere. Just a matter of a loading it with different weapons.

Not needed: Time will tell whether this is the right plane, but new planes are needed. And they absolutely must have stealth. Within 10 years, weapon systems will be so advanced that if you are spotted, you're as good as dead. We are currently dropping bombs on fairly unsophisticated enemies, but wars tend to escalate quickly. You just never know either way, and it's better to be prepared for the worst. There are plenty of countries with very good planes and pilots that could get sucked into a conflict. If you're really unlucky you could be fighting US made planes with pilots trained in the same way, and you don't want to be fighting a fair fight.
Further still, Russia, China and Japan are developing their own stealth planes, which pretty much forces everyone else to do the same thing.
Especially if Donald Trump gets elected. You never know who that crazy asshole is going to provoke into a war

Doesn't work: It's still in development and testing.

Overtasked: It does the same stuff the aging multi-role planes (that were originally built as fighters) do. With the addition of stealth, and better weapons/sensors/comms. Small performance variables don't win wars, superior tactics and situational awareness does.

Underpowered: Almost every plane ever built has had it's engines upgraded to give it more thrust through it's life. And engines on planes are almost a disposable item, they're constantly being replaced throughout the life-cycle of the plane. Like a formula one car.
The current engine, is already the most powerful engine ever in a jet fighter. It is good enough to fly super sonic without an afterburner, which none of the planes it's replacing are capable of.

Piloted: Agreed. But who knows, maybe a Boston Dynamics robot will be flying it soon

Test Failing: That's only a good thing. You want things to fail during tests, and not in the real world. Testing and finding flaws is a normal part of developing anything.

Fragile: That can be said for all US aircraft. They all need to have the runway checked for FOD, because one little rock can destroy even the best plane. Russian aircraft on the other hand are designed to be rugged though, because they're runways are in terrible condition. But in reality, all sophisticated equipment needs constant maintenance, especially when even a simple failure at 40,000 feet becomes an emergency.

Quickly Obsolete: Time will tell. Perhaps it would have been better to keep upgrading current planes with more technology like plasma stealth gas that make then partially stealthy, better sensors and more computing power. But by the time you've done that you've got a plane that's as heavy as F-35 anyway, and not as capable. Although it might have been cheaper in the long run.

Like I said in my previous comment. All of this doesn't make an interesting story so you'll only ever hear the two extremes which are "the plane sux" vs "it's invicible!!11" depending on your media source.

OK, it was poorly said, and yes Bill's getting hyperbolic in his old age, but I think the sentiment is correct.
Every time you coddle a child (at the expense of the public) and make it think the world revolves around it and other people don't matter, you take a step towards creating a narcissist with no empathy like Drumpf. That's bad for them and us.
One instance of non-parenting does not a Trump make, but a consistent pattern can.
I actually took an interest in food at about 4years old when my parents sent me to jr cooking class. Pigs in a blanket, crepes, and cherry tarts, so simplistic cooking, but it got my interest in food started.
I also constantly questioned my teachers, but I did it because I wanted to know the why of what they just said, not because I thought I knew better than they did....usually.

That's certainly your choice. I'll roll the dice any day if it means bacon. I respect your right to take or avoid the risks you wish until you try to remove my right to make my own choice.

It would be nice, but no, wild boar are notoriously dangerous and aggressive, and also incredibly destructive and fertile, I don't think a sterilization program would work for many reasons. What they really need is a huge, repeating, mass hunt with big prizes (to get enough people to join for a clean sweep) so they actually eradicate them. Leaving them alive in the wild, even if neutered (which I don't think could work on pigs, since one missed female can repopulate so quickly) means years of horrendous destruction of the already endangered habitats in Hawaii.
BUSTED!!! I knew it. I've wanted to ask one of you...do pigs know what to say to someone who says to them "When pigs fly"?
.
.
.
A: 2009 buddy....swine flu.

I'll disagree that's it's perfectly fine food. Bacon is a type 1 carcinogen. Which means there is no doubt that it causes cancer. Non processed pork, is a type 2 carcinogen, which means it causes cancer, but they need more data to confirm it.
The risks aren't quite as high as with cigarettes but it's an extra set of dice I'm not going to roll. That's information from the W.H.O.

I'm not sure if this method would work in Hawaii, but they've had a lot of success in Europe with stray animals by using a catch a release program http://carocat.eu/the-catch-neuter-and-release-approach/. It's a little slower, but not that much since cats and dogs have a pretty short life-cycle when they are stray. I think you could make a few alterations and, the invasive boars instead of running away from hunters, would begin to approach them instead, and you could register, and neuter them.

Damn you blew my cover. I'm am indeed a pig, hence my bias in this thread. Here's a picture of me and my boat driver in the bahamas http://www.tecnologia-ambiente.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/maiale-isola.jpeg