Sadly this seems very plausible after the series I just watched on Netflix , Border Security, Australia's First Line. If people think we treat incoming people rough, they should watch that show. Almost every episode they show some poor sad sack that committed a crime or something 20+ years ago that just wants to come and visit. Most of the time the response is gtfo and don't come back for 3 years, except for one guy who did 12 years in prison for drug trafficking. He just happened to be Sugar Shane Mosley's trainer, so they were like "We should by all rights deny his visa, but we have to weigh the benefit to Australia's citizens that might have bought tickets to the fight....yep, let him in." Or they have a sniffer scanner that picks up what seems to be infinitesimal amounts of any sort of drug residue, which means you get body searched and they go through every thing you have with a fine toothed comb.

I turned to my wife and said, "We are never going to Australia." She asked why and I told her that every bit of the US cash anyone comes into contact with is inundated with multiple types of drug residues. We would probably show up and get cavity searched for 14 different types of drugs. Anyway, after watching the show, I felt it was clear that the government of Australia is very comfortable with the "Come here, spend shitloads of money, and then gtfo because we don't want you here" attitude.

There is nothing inherently immoral about creating weapons. The problem lies in what they are used for. Just like the most basic of tools, a hammer can be used to build or to kill. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have invented the hammer. The onus is on the person using it.

In either case, that has little to do with the factory farming holocaust.

What you did there is called an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy. You're saying vegans aren't morally perfect, so they have no place to tell us about morality. It's a derailment of the actual issue just like how you've previously used an appeal to nature, and an appeal history as well.

After that most people try the appeal to futility. And failing that they'll say something completely illogical such as "bacon tho" just to "win" the conversation, because it's not possible argue with something that unreasonable.

Like I mentioned in one of the other comments, I've said all of this myself in the past, I 100% believed it in the past, but eventually coming to the logical conclusion that I was wrong. I only had to accept that all of the animal exploitation I contributed to in the past was wrong, and decide that I no longer want to be apart of it. I can't take back the stuff I did, but to continue doing so knowing fully the extent of the consequences would be the poorer choice.

You don't need to morally perfect in order to solve a very obvious problem. As with war as well, it's often it's about choosing the less bad option, after weighing in all consequences.

I'm from Manitoba myself and the juxtaposition of the video showing great restraint by the officer with this quote from the article is my main reason for posting:
Leah Gazan, an Indigenous activist and University of Winnipeg professor, said the officer could've used less forceful tactics to restrain Kokopenace

I don't want to downplay the obstacles faced in the US by African Americans, but I feel really strongly that race relations in Canada between Aboriginals and the country is in a MUCH worse place.

In Canada the past and history between aboriginals and Canada still has been ignored more often than it has been met head on. For both good and ill reasons over our history, we've had a two tiered system of laws that treat separately with you based on whether you are native or not. Originally this was oppressive of native communities, but now it's often the other way around:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/judges-must-weigh-cultural-factors-in-native-sentencing-court-rules/article535585/

The greater problem to try and solve is Canada's native reserve system. Native people living on reserves are more often than not growing up in 3rd world conditions. The worst part is, proposing changes to that system is itself 'racist' against aboriginals. Our reserve system is systematically destroying generations of people based upon their race, and nobody seems to be able to fix the thing .

White cis male weighing in, so I know the only acceptable position I can take is to defer the decision to others, but I'll chance it.

It seems pretty obvious to me the people taking the most abuse in and having the most anxiety on the subject are going to be anyone transgendered.

I am however a bit reluctant to rule out the concern that might be held by the female half of the population of using public bathrooms alongside males. I know, most of the proposals are all based on simply allowing transgender people who identify as female to use female restrooms. I don't however think it's fair to straight out reject concerns from females that male predators, or more probably 'mere' perverts, can pretty easily 'fake it' and walk right in.

The argument of just get over yourself or you phobias also cuts both ways. Anyone insisting this is a world altering vital battleground over freedom and privacy is maybe taking things too far.

I had to watch to see how someone who weighs 23lbs soaking wet could be "badass".

I've been schooled.

The concept of veganism is to reduce unnecessary suffering and exploitation, no more no less. A lot of vegans don't even understand that concept. Letting nature take it's course, is not the vegan concept. If a lion jumped out and started mauling you I'd still try to save you (assuming I wasn't running way LOL), but of course I'd try to do it in a way that did as little harm to the lion as possible with weighing in the speed at which I'd have to act in order to have the least harm done to you by the lion as well.

It's not a black and white rule book, rather it's a philosophical and ethical balancing act that takes in a lot of considerations. I hope no vegans would be against the guinea worm going extinct. As far as I know (I don't know much about it) is that won't affect any other eco system if it goes extinct. It's not exactly a sentient being either. So removing it from existence as far as we are able to tell will do more good than bad. It will in that case cause less suffering.

Of course some nut job from PETA might disagree with me.

That's a baby.

She's lucky it's probably (barely) old enough to be away from mama cougar (I'm 95% sure that's what it is). Looks like it weighs 70-80 pounds or so. Large adults get up to five feet at the shoulder and can weigh over 200 pounds.

That's been refuted now http://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

If you read the comments there, it's clear that it wasn't a performance test, but a fly by wire program trial and tune.

But of course that doesn't make head lines like sensationalism.

EDIT: Looks like Arse Technica also ran follow up story:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/07/f-35-project-team-says-dogfight-report-does-not-tell-whole-story/

Even still I would still expect a F-16 which weighs less than 1/2, and has a better thrust to weight ratio to be fully capable of waxing the F-35 in a guns only dog fight. That's just physics. I'd also expect an even lighter and zippier F-5e to do the same to the F-16. And people did have that critism back in the early 70s.

But as I've said above many times. Dog fights haven't existed since WW1.

So if she weighs the same as a block of steel...

...then she's made of feathers?

It is surprising when it gets down to it ...the company's defend this to the government instead of the other way around.

The government sniffs into its populace too much already.
They don't need encouragement.

I really wish Obama would weigh in on this, he has a very practical nature to him.

12x 5' lengths of 1/2" EMT conduit weigh about 16 lbs. Add maybe a pound for fittings. If that's not EMT but aluminum, it would weigh a little less.

May not be common knowledge, but elevators actually have a counterweight, that weighs as much as the elevator would when it's filled by a certain number of people, to ease the load on the motor. When there's only one person in the elevator, the motor actually has to work harder when the elevator is on the way down than on the way up, as it has to lift the counterweight.

not really. generally one must demonstrate understanding by repeating back a description of the proposed intervention, show that they can weigh up options, communicate decision.
You don't have to agree with the decision.

I really have enjoyed Fallout 4, but having watched this i'm surprised that i kind of agree with it. I think out of all the quests i've done in the game, a good 90% of them must have been to kill everything in a certain area, sometimes even when i'd already cleared out that area. Mindlessly ferreting away huge amounts of scrap stuff and making trips home just to store it was boring as hell, a better option would have been to let us strip useful stuff out junk and have it weigh less.

It says something for what they've put together when you think that it makes almost all of the critical errors of rpg making and still somehow manages to make me enjoy it. But i think the mistakes it does make takes away from its longevity, i played all the time for a few weeks and now not at all, and i can't quite bring myself to finish any of the main storylines.

So, first, lets just notice that your position was A. you had abuse, I won't discuss it with you then or B. you had no abuse, I won't discuss it with you then. Right? ;-)
EDIT: I'm not sure how the topic of abuse came up, or weighs into this argument though.

As to your point here, yes, if I felt any "need" at all for faith, and I don't, I would absolutely need that faith to be based in logic and provable fact if I'm to believe it, and that disqualifies all faiths today.

EDIT: No, it's not a "need", it's a want...or more correctly a condition.

I was my own help with my brother/abuser...so I guess yeah, I always walk with help...I AM HELP! Odd that I'm so often unhelpful then, huh?