Actually, I think the 2014 show was entirely new stuff compared to the one that I saw first. It is hard for me to call which time was better -- I saw them first (with the twinkie bit) when I was like 17 or so, and then again in my 30's.

I was really entertained by the twinkie bit -- memorable enough that that was probably my overall favorite non-musical bit of either performance I saw. But overall I think the later show might have been even better. And like I said, I don't remember any rehashed material between the two, but the time span between them makes me not 100% sure about that.

The teleprompter text warmup stuff -- sarcasm and jokey stuff -- was really good in both shows also. With regards to songs, Rods and Cones is probably my single favorite of theirs. The giant drum that is below human hearing range but physically compresses your chest was featured in that early show, from the "Audio" album era. That wasn't used in the newer show, and it added something to the live show even though you can't actually "hear" it so much as "feel" it. But obviously home stereos can't reproduce that, and there are a lot of good songs from the newer albums / shows also.

I'm not disagreeing with you that there are farms where the animals are treated well in comparison. But the majority of food does not come from these farms. Like you said these are usually small scale operations like your aunt. We're talking 50-60 billion animals a year. Millions of animals per hour in the US alone. They simply need to kill them as young as possible to even meet the demand, through industrialized means. They call it factory farming for a reason.
And no factory farmers don't care about the well-being of animals. Any minor growth benefits of happy animals are easily outweighed by a few hormone injections. It's cheaper and faster. If they cared: They wouldn't rip piglets balls off with their bare hands to neuter them. They wouldn't keep "cage less" chickens in the dark to save on electricity. They wouldn't hold a chickens head to a sander or iron to de-beak them. They wouldn't grind up baby male chickens in a blender alive. They wouldn't cut off pigs tales without anesthetic. So on and So on. Your food might comes from some nice farm like your aunts, but for most of people it does not.

You're right that eating animals that died of old age is probably the only truly ethical way you could eat them. Though they'd have to have reproduced naturally too.

I'm not a fan of the eat less concept because of the morality aspect. It might work for some people, and it's probably not a bad short term stepping stone to get to people thinking about the consequences. But it just doesn't add up to me ethically: I wouldn't go from kicking a dog 10 times a week to just 3 times a week, because it means I'm kicking 7 less dogs. It's still a terrible thing to do, so why even be part of that cycle.

Because most people are raised as meat eaters, I think their perspective is completely wrong, as was mine. When they talk to vegans they always give reasons to not give up animal products. But to me the question really is: What is the reason TO eat any animal products at all?


Health wise it's a no-brainer there are a ton of good books about nutrition, like "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger, or any book by Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, or Dr. John McDougall. ( all their work is based on thousands of peer reviewed and published research papers ).

Animal compassion wise it's a no-brainer. Animals want to live and be happy period. Everything else is just an excuse to keep exploiting them.

With documentaries like Cowspiracy and Earthlings coming out, it's people are becoming aware that we're all on one planet and if people went vegan overnight, that's 1/2 of the global warming gone. That's 1 football field a second of rainforest (and all of the animals and unique species ) being destroyed. That's the fish not going extinct in the next 10 years. That's GMO's not killing the pollinating bees and earthworms (which are necessary part of the ecosystem, we'll die without them).

So what reason is really left to eat any animal products?

Taste. People don't want to become vegan because they think they are giving up something and it's not true. It's more like trading a bad habit for something truly great. And it's free. And it has the potential to change the world.

I'm yet to hear a good reason to eat any animal product.(from anyone I mean)

This is the reason I don't eat animals anymore. No amount of flavor is better than seeing this creature enjoy a cookie. (not to mention, said flavor is easily reproducible with a combo of the right spices, most of all smoked paprika)

You're wrong about virtues of Christianity
And you're wrong if you agree with Sean Hannity
If you think that pride is about nationality, you're wrong

You're wrong when you imprison people turning tricks
And you're wrong about trickle down economics
If you think that punk rock doesn't mix with politics, you're wrong

You're wrong for hating queers and eating steers
If you kill for the thrill of the hunt
You're wrong 'bout wearing fur and not hating Ann Coulter
Cause she's a cunted cunt

You're wrong if you celebrate Columbus Day
And You're wrong if you think there will be a Judgement Day
If you're a charter member of the NRA, you're wrong

You're wrong if you support capital punishment
And you're wrong if you don't question your government
If you think her reproductive rights are inconsequent, you're wrong

You're wrong fighting Jihad, your blind faith in God
Your religions are all flawed,
You're wrong about drug use, when its not abuse
I hope you never reproduce

You're getting high on the downlow
A victim of Cointelpro
You're wrong and will probably never know

Love this song *promote

*actionpack, *nature and *eia, really - the winner gets to reproduce.

No, nothing about this was cool. It reproduced everything that was BAD about sci fi action movies.

The obscene amounts of light flicker, despite the fact that POWER SYSTEMS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY, would make JJ Abrams blush.

It would be cooler if it did that when you attached the leads backwards. Then it would reproduce almost exactly about half of my electrical engineering labs in school, only without the smoke.

I'm guessing probably due to the album it's a part of - there's usually a few 'strong' words in them.

@eric3579 Yea agreed, the original is probably unbeatable - it's especially amazing considering it's a guitar and a couple of blokes - they didn't have all the fancy technology and producing we have access to these days.

What's a bit weird for me, is how the cover has one vocalist but it doesn't seem to diminish the feeling. I mean the original version is so great because of how their voices combine. It must have been quite difficult to reproduce that element of the song in such a different way.

Because nicotine itself is not terribly addictive. The main components of addiction to tobacco are now believed to be other substances.

Now consider the mechanical act of smoking; inhale, exhale cloud, reward.
Using a vaporizer reproduces the physical act that smoker's brains associate with the reward.

There does seem to be a period at the beginning of using a vaporizer, where there's a craving for cigarettes, perhaps because of the other addictive chemicals that are absent. But this craving isn't particularly difficult to overcome when you're satisfying the other elements of your habit. Not to mention, lungs clearing, sense of taste returning...

Then there's the final stage of using a vaporizer, which I've seen happen with others and I've experienced...you lower the nicotine levels further and further and then one day you start forgetting to use it at all. Your frequency of use may drop to nothing. Not always though. Some people go truely insane. We call them "scuba vapers". One of my buddies has earned the nickname "Darth Vaper".

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Hmm, I'm not having this issue - I tend to either log on with Facebook or manually. I'll give it a go now and try to reproduce the problem.

Good old Mallard ducks, proof if ever there was of our all loving creators perfection....

......The first non-human species ever observed engaging in homosexual necrophilia and I believe the only species know to reproduce exclusively by gang rape.

He is genuinely quite cute here though, I still want one!

Ok, now you're just being willfully stupid.

Yes, life in the Universe is possible, but that doesn't mean your favored theory about how life arrived in the Universe is possible.
What favoured theory? I have no idea how life arrived in the universe. I suspect we never will. Even if we reproduce the exact conditions that gave rise to life and see single celled life created that doesn't mean that's how it started however many billions of years ago. I never claimed to know these things. Claiming to know things you can't possibly know is religions act, not sciences.

The probability has been calculated, more often than not, at many, many times greater than the number of atoms in the Universe.
Citation needed.

There has been no scientific proof provided showing that abiogenesis is possible.
Already admitted. But there is a sound theoretical basis behind.

To rule out at the least a possible designer is simply personal bias

Did you somehow miss the part THAT YOU QUOTED where I said I can't prove god doesn't exist. I simply stated that it's incredibly improbable.

There is plenty of positive evidence for Gods existence
Really? Please point me to the peer reviewed scientific paper that shows this. Otherwise, all you have are anecdotes.

faith in abiogenesis is simply blind faith

If I had "faith" in abiogenesis, that would be correct. But once again, I ask you do you understand the difference between what I think is probable based on observed facts and "taking something on faith"? I don't "believe" in abiogenesis. It seems like a reasonable explanation for the origin of life (certainly better than "magic beard in the sky did it"), but right now, it's just a hypothesis. Not even a theory. If we obtain some evidence one way or the other, I will switch my position. You're locked into yours regardless of the facts.

A God existing does not violate anything we know about the Universe.Thermodynamics would like a word with you.

Just because we understand the mechanics of something does not rule out an agency behind it. It would be like taking apart a car and then saying that because we understand how the car is put together that gasoline does not exist.
Jesus, that is so stupid I don't even know where to start. Do you actually read what you've written? Do you understand what the word "agency" means? Gasoline is the not the agency of a car, the driver is. A car without a driver does nothing (until google get their way anyway). And we can clearly see all the parts of a cars design where input is required from the driver and energy provided by the gasoline.

If you can show me a magical ghost car that drives without a driver or fuel source, I will believe in god. Meanwhile, we live in a universe that functions just fine without the requirement for any supernatural agency.

The bible says that everyone is provided evidence of Gods existence
The bible is a bad story book written by tribal idiots who didn't have a clue about their world. I don't give a shit what it says. Call me when you have actual evidence.

Funny you ask questions but 'aren't looking for an answer', maybe because you feel you already have an answer you feel is right? Feelings can be wrong, you've proven that.

Morality is important because people live together, and without morality you get only chaos. Morality, and/or empathy have evolutionary benefits and are behavioral evolutionary constructs. Those without it are shunned from/by society and so don't reproduce as often as those with it. That's just one difference it makes, but a big one.

So, you know these things about yourself, but if someone else points them out they're a bully? Thicken your skin if you intend to stay on the internet is my best advice, that and read your posts as if they were written TO you before hitting 'submit', if you do that honestly you'll find you display the same behavior you complain about.
I point out to you that @offsetSammy made a great point in his second paragraph you ignored completely in order to call him names.

They're called Honorable Mentions and they are a part of the Darwin Awards. Usually applies when they already have kids or when modern medicine maintains they're ability to reproduce post-idiocy.