Yet it is how they were ultimately defeated.

I don't mind swimming against the stream on this one; i think it's fine to punch nazis.

When you express your support for nazis, you're not just saying you have an alternative viewpoint. You are saying that you support the ideals of the old nazi party, you support Hitler & his goals, you want to see people exterminated in a genocidal system and you celebrate that such a system existed. You are actively pursuing a course of action that, if successful, will result in the deaths of millions of people. Your goal is to kill people.

I don't think there's any comparison to the same kind of treatment of the Phelps family. They celebrate death, misery and hate, but they never killed millions of Jews and other 'undesirables.' They are unconscionable bastards, but that's it. Your end goal in supporting them is not violence & genocide.

I can justify breaking the law to punch a nazi in the same way i can justify breaking the law to protest a fascist government. Laws aren't divine or sacrosanct, and they certainly aren't constant. Our oligarchs meddle with them on a daily basis. The right thing to do may not always be the legal thing to do, and you should not rely on your government to decide right and wrong for you (that's what nazi germany thrived on - 'i was only obeying orders'). The "law" argument will never convince me.

But i might be convinced for other reasons.

Skip the beef, and save the reef :-)
Choose the bean pattie instead.

"Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.


Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”

Goodland, Robert & Anhang, Jeff. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are...cows, pigs and chickens?". WorldWatch. November/December 2009

Hickman, Martin. "Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases". Independent. November 2009

Hyner, Christopher. "A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It". Georgetown Environmental Law Review. October 23, 2015. (New)"

@newtboy

My last appeal from a different angle.
You said:
I have been clear that not all, or even a majority of Trump voters are blatant racists, but they all are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with blatant racists and support blatantly racist policy....

You are writing off everyone that voted Trump for pretty much any reason as either racist, or willing supporters of racists. Stop me here if I'm misrepresenting what you are being clear on.

Assuming I'm safe so far, here's my fear: You are almost enthusiastically embracing the us versus them mentality that hate thrives on. What's worse, is this mindset, which it would appear a great many democrats and media outlets share, strengthens the us versus them dynamic.

Maybe that doesn't scare you. It would seem likely even that the democrats aren't scared of it either. It seems that being 'right' on the matter is believed to be enough.

Here's why guys like me are scared though. Your guys LOST the election. I'm afraid I'm watching the democrats chase off Trump voters that just wanted jobs to feed their families at EXACTLY the time when you need them. Chasing them off is how you lose the next election all over again. If the democrats can't get the message that the Donald was considered the lesser evil by a huge part of America and change themselves to reach the people, then what will wake them up?

Bob, I double dog dare you to read this and let me know what you think...

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/21/can-globe-trotting-clinton-foundation-thrive-in-populist-trump-age.html

Social security isn't a hand out. It is a HORRIBLE investment program that has been warped and disfigured from it's original purpose. At least people HAVE been paying into it for a LONG time. I'm not exactly surprised that they want to reap SOME sort of benefit for it.

Tax breaks (that favor specific companies or markets) are government handouts. Speaking of solar, how did our government handout for Solyndra do? Must have been a Red state... no?

Medicare as well is something that has been taken out of people's checks (you know, people with actual jobs) for a long long time. Again, not surprising that people expect to get something for that...

In my experience, in general country folk are very independent folk and are generally self reliant. If you want to find locations in the USA where people thrive off of governmental handouts, pick up a map that shows all the blue counties/parishes/districts/etc.

You're just a different type of gamer than those of us who thrived during the early eras of gaming. My brother and I used to do speed runs through Full Throttle just for fun because we enjoyed adventure titles so much. It's like watching your favorite movie over and over again, except that you get to interact with the characters.

Especially Full Throttle, Day of the Tentacle, Sam & Max, most of the modern Tex Murphy adventures, and the Monkey Islands. Mostly Lucas Arts and Sierra, but companies like Access also provided hours and hours of the tedious adventure game shlock we enjoy. Hell, there were days where an entire 24 hours was spent playing text adventures, some of those hours spent replaying a game we had played through 100 times or more.

Hops started being used along the Rhine river in Germany around the 10th-11th century. It took some time before the use of hops was written into the Purity Law to ensure the quality of beer.

Because German beer would keep longer, it could be distributed further. With wider distribution, the beer could be made in larger batches. Larger batches meant it could be made more cheaply (per unit) which allowed German beer to compete against local breweries.

The early edge the Germans had in incorporating hops into their ales and beers gave them a competitive advantage that would last for centuries, and a brewing culture that thrives to this day.

Incidentally, the invention of calculus made trade easier as most beer (and pretty much everything else too) was carried in wooden barrels. Since barrels were hand-made they would often have slightly different sizes. Calculus made it easier to calculate the volume of the container to ensure the seller and customer would get a fair deal on the trade.

There are actually a couple of other happiness-increasing technique that is somewhat non-intuitive, is shown to increase happiness in repeated studies, and is fairly easy to implement and difficult to reverse: Having a dog or cat.

It appears that being needed by the animal makes the human feel as if they have intrinsic value which...I mean it would be nice if we had that without pets but, there it is. If you want the best bang for your buck, I would suggest a small dog or cat from the pound as it will eat significantly less food than a bigger animal.

Another life change that actually effectively increases long-term happiness on average is marriage. This seemed a little too hairy for this video though. Also, DEFINITELY NOT DOSE-DEPENDENT. One spouse...better for happiness. Two spouses USUALLY NOT.

So there you go...get a pet, get hitched, and shorten your commute. You need to get home anyway, so you can feed your dog!

SOURCES:
Homeownership doesn't increase happiness: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/realestate/homeownership-the-key-to-happiness.html?_r=0
Short Commute = $40,000 raise
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/19/141514467/small-changes-can-help-you-thrive-happily
Commuting Linked to Lower Life Satisfaction
https://uwaterloo.ca/recreation-and-l...

Commuting and Metabolic / Cardiovascular Health
https://uwaterloo.ca/recreation-and-leisure-studies/crunched-time-commuting-linked-lower-life-satisfaction

Commuting related to lower social activity and lower general trust
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4509867/

10 Things Commuting Does to your Body
http://time.com/9912/10-things-your-commute-does-to-your-body/

This brings back my feeling of dread and dismay when Google took over YouTube. It certainly blowed up our thriving cat community *promote ...good times are gone ... again

And EVERYONE was in on it! How f'ing horrific!? How can we expect to fix any of the problems in the world, if we can't come to grips with what we are as evolved, biological animals in a fragile ecosystem on a lonely rock spaceship who thrive in communities; and not as some divinely created children of some imaginary wizard authority.

How about at least letting the girl take pride in her own skills and effort instead of needing to thank God for doing nothing.

I guess that's where we differ.

I find it funny precisely because such things really happen.

In a world where no such cruelty exists, I think this kind of material would then become empty and pointless. Comedy thrives on the defiance of our misery.

I dare say it would get less of a laugh in Sweden for this very reason.

I'm clearly in the minority here, but then I suspect few people have developed the same sense of cynical detachment I have (working with the severely mentally I'll and dieing will do that to you).

The humour is definitely there, I guess you just need a suitably fucked up perspective to appreciate it.

Out of curiosity, did you find Jim's old bit about the child getting shot when he was in Iraq funny? I might suggest that is an even more cruel and fucked up situation than the subject matter being discussed here.

Would that only become funny when children are no longer victims of wars? Or is it funny precisely because of the incomprehensible cruelty and misfortune underlying it?

Perhaps you have an easier time detaching yourself from something that isn't as likely to happen to you? This seems reasonable, but I don't see how it precludes such material from being funny, only more challenging for one to engage with. (and thus more powerful if one can do so)

To bring in a thread from another reply "And this is the brilliance of Louis -- that he lays bare the humanity of even pedophiles. The truth of pedophiles."

In what sense is Jim not doing the same thing here? He is flippantly exploring Cosby's desire to victimise women, we all have desires and sometimes act on those impulses when we shouldn't.
Rape is an extreme example, but the thought process is ultimately the same thing writ large. "I want a thing I can't have, but I'm doing it anyway".
I might argue he is laying bare the universal human condition in just the same way, albeit with something closer to home for most people than paedophilia.

Presumably it's the other thread that's proving challenging, i.e. the masochistic idea of enjoying ones abuse? And again, there is something deeply fucked up at the heat of the human condition here. Deriving pleasure from victim hood, or having messed up priorities about fame and opportunity.
Stockholm syndrome, abused partners loving their spouses, groupies allowing themselves to be abused just to be near their idols.

We are really that fucked up as a species sometimes, cognitive dissonance is almost a way of life for most of us in our own little ways. It's clearly a deeply risque subject, but there is something dark at the core of the human condition there none the less.

The actual victims don't need to have the kind of mixed up priorities Jim is alluding to, we only have to recognise that we posses the capacity for that dissonance ourselves. (The joke being at the expense of our own inherent hypocrisies, not specific victims)

The only big difference I can really see is that child rape is much rarer than the kind being discussed here. (and thus I suppose easier for most to detach themselves from)

Is it really any less horrific? Surely if anything it is far more terrible for most victims and usually seems to cause more damage to their lives.

How does Louis's material on Child rape remain funny in a world where children are raped, yet Jim's material about women being raped only become funny in a world where they do not get raped?

Paedophiles have a culture too. They form groups, exchange materials, praise each others work etc. etc. Not to mention grooming rings and other such reprehensible things.

I understand that a particular subject can strike too close to home, but for me that was my failing to rise above my own fears and traumas. When I finally got to a place where I could laugh at my own victim hood, it was one of the most liberating experiences of my life. (Don't get me wrong, that shit never completely goes away)

The truth is one of the reasons I'm vegan is because I'm very worried about our own species. We only have one planet to live on, and and worrying about what we eat, and the methods to produce it have far reaching consequences, one of which is the death of a large amount of humans via global warming and the various environmental issues it sets off.

On a more personal scale I'm worried about peoples health. It's no secret that meat causes and encourages cancer, and all animal products cause a range of health issues which lead to death. There are around a million completely preventable deaths each year in the US alone. Not to mention quality of life issues. All of which could have been prevented, treated and even reversed on a proper plant based diet.

That's the beautiful thing that I have found with veganism, is that everybody wins. The people are thinner and healthier, the environment thrives, and no animals are harmed unnecessarily.

Here is a question for you. How will you explain to your son's children that there are no more fish in the ocean, why we have no jungles left? Because "you really like bacon" doesn't seem like a good answer all of a sudden

When you see what horrible things people did in the past, such as whaling, or seal beating, don't you think to yourself, why were they so blind, so greedy and selfish? They could have done things a lot differently. Perhaps they didn't know better, but we don't have that excuse anymore, because we are aware of what impact our choices have for everyone and everything on this planet.

you are equating intentional harm with unintentional harm. mixing situations of conflict with situations with no conflict and equating sentient life with non-sentient life since it is impossible to live without killing, it is also imperative to do the least harm possible and that can be accomplished by first refusing to murder sentient animals in the name of pleasure and profit. in many countries the vast majority of humans also used to strongly believe that a white person's life was much more valuable than a black person's life but that did not make it so.

it is telling that one would consider the torture and murder of 60 billion+ sentient beings every year in the name of a trivial taste preference as a mere "pet project". in fact, many organizations are finally coming to realize that it IS the most critical issue humans and the planet are facing. here is but one of countless examples:
https://journals.law.stanford.edu/stanford-environmental-law-journal-elj/blog/leading-cause-everything-one-industry-destroying-our-planet-and-our-abil
ity-thrive-it

even if one does not accept the idea of animal rights and the equality of sentient beings, if non-human animals matter morally (as they obviously do to the man in the video in question and anyone who likes this story), this short article will explain why not eating or using non-human animals is the only logically consistent response:

http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/veganism-without-animal-rights/

Beware of missing the forest for the trees!

Humans are quite capable of thriving on an entirely meat based diet - https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2015nl/apr/eskimos.htm

I personally wouldn't enjoy it much, but am willing to acknowledge that it's physically possible.

Can you think of a herbivore with that ability? Most herbivores are quite willing to eat a bit of meat occasionally, but by definition don't only eat meat. Here's a deer eating a bird for example, which is really not unnusual, but deer really are herbivores:

I know this isn't going to change the world (almost certainly), but it moved me a little bit to see that point made on such a prominent stage and so bluntly. If this doesn't happen soon, i don't see how our species can thrive. There is currently so little regard for the consequences of our actions.. and Hilary probably believes what she says, that it never affected her. But subtle changes to priorities here and there add up over the years. As smart as she must be to be a presidential candidate, lobbyists can buy 'experts' to sound convincing and come up with selective ways to show data, or just buy more access to a politician and get more time to put their point across.