I recently visited a slaughterhouse where they are in the beginning of the season. They unalive 3k+ animals daily.

I am not a vegetarian, and I have a deep understanding that we need food to survive, and that meat is important part of our diet.

Nevertheless, this hit me hard in multiple parts.

First, just listening to all the animals outside inside trailers.
Secondly, contemplating their imminent fate.
Third, what does this do to your psyche if you are the one unaliving x amount of animals each day.

Life is precious. I'll be first in line the moment we figure out how to grow proteins and carbs in laboratories.

That does not seem to be entirely true. It is true that immunity declines, whether from vaccination or infection. It's not true that vaccination gives better or longer lasting protection than vaccination.

From https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.04.21267114v1

RESULTS Confirmed infection rates increased according to time elapsed since the last immunity-conferring event in all cohorts. For unvaccinated previously infected individuals they increased from 10.5 per 100,000 risk-days for those previously infected 4-6 months ago to 30.2 for those previously infected over a year ago. For individuals receiving a single dose following prior infection they increased from 3.7 per 100,000 person days among those vaccinated in the past two months to 11.6 for those vaccinated over 6 months ago. For vaccinated previously uninfected individuals the rate per 100,000 person days increased from 21.1 for persons vaccinated within the first two months to 88.9 for those vaccinated more than 6 months ago.

CONCLUSIONS Protection from reinfection decreases with time since previous infection, but is, nevertheless, higher than that conferred by vaccination with two doses at a similar time since the last immunity-con

Teacher here. It's made-up-nonsense. I don't give a shit what gender or sexual orientation a kid is and im CERTAINLY not going to try to convince anyone to change anything about themselves.

That said, I'm going to acknowledge that gay/trans people exist in authorship and literature as it arises. You can't read someone like Whitman (Leaves of Grass, arguably America's greatest poet) and not come across references to sexuality either implicit or explicit. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45472/i-sing-the-body-electric

It becomes relevant in passages like this:

5
This is the female form,
A divine nimbus exhales from it from head to foot,
It attracts with fierce undeniable attraction,
I am drawn by its breath as if I were no more than a helpless vapor, all falls aside but myself and it,
Books, art, religion, time, the visible and solid earth, and what was expected of heaven or fear’d of hell, are now consumed,
Mad filaments, ungovernable shoots play out of it, the response likewise ungovernable,
Hair, bosom, hips, bend of legs, negligent falling hands all diffused, mine too diffused,
Ebb stung by the flow and flow stung by the ebb, love-flesh swelling and deliciously aching,
Limitless limpid jets of love hot and enormous, quivering jelly of love, white-blow and delirious juice,
Bridegroom night of love working surely and softly into the prostrate dawn,
Undulating into the willing and yielding day,
Lost in the cleave of the clasping and sweet-flesh’d day.

----------------------------------
Maybe a conversation like:

"'Love flesh swelling' like he's in love with some woman and they...he...?"

"Probably not, he didn't have any serious female relationships as far as I am aware."

"But the title is 'The female form'"

"Well, it's possible, but it's not likely the case that he was talking about himself being in love with a woman. This poem is in the text but he wrote many other pieces about he-himself falling into and out of love with various men and we have letters documenting those relationships with his male significant others. Although, I'm not sure what to call them because gay marriage would have been illegal at the time. He's likely writing the poem in a way where he appreciates the female form and sees men who are drawn to it like the way I appreciate watching bees act obsessively driven to the middle of flowers. I like watching Bees in action, but that doesn't mean I'm going all pollen crazy, still I appreciate it for what it is."
-------------------

This is an example of how discussion of sexuality would come up in my classroom as I imagine it. Note how I'm not trying to convince the kid I'm talking to to turn gay like it's a big game of rainbow-red-rover or something. Nevertheless, knowing the author's sexual preference in this instance informs our understanding of the piece.


My own personal theory?
The people railing against things like this are the same shitheads that can't be bothered to read ANYTHING and instead giggle and guffaw at "hurhurhurhur he hadd'a boner" where I get to live an early stage of Idocracy.

Also, I agree that the "funky stuff" shouldn't be just avoided altogether. For goodness sake, just let teachers have the difficult conversation that everyone is avoiding. Reminds me of when Peggy Hill was struggling to say "Penis" when she was assigned sex ed.

Also, that Epoch times site guy... and the company


I'm not wasting more time on your nonsense than I have to

BUT LET ME BE CLEAR I WILL MAKE THE BET - THROW DOWN IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT Ya' FUCKING SELL-YOUR-OWN-COUNTRY-OUT-FASCIST-WANNABE
+buuuurp+ ooo sorry about that, just came out, anyway.

im not wasting my time digging because idk it's like at what point do you tell a person who is suffering from a mental illness that you're not taking them seriously anymore?


+pats your head+




nevertheless, from a glancing of the sources cited on the wiki, there's an...odd? story behind this site?

-------------\
Introducing|>>>>>>>>>>>> The Epoch Times! The news source that is so honest we have no fucking clue where they get their money from...except probably china...probably.
-------------/

"The Epoch Times was founded in 2000 by John Tang and other Chinese Americans affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement.[26] Tang was a graduate student in Georgia at the time; he began the newspaper in his basement.[21] The founders said they were responding to censorship inside China and a lack of international understanding about the Chinese government's repression of Falun Gong.[27][28] In May 2000, the paper was first published in the Chinese language in New York, with the web launch in August 2000.[29]

According to NBC News, "little is publicly known about the precise ownership, origins or influences of The Epoch Times," and it is loosely organized into several regional tax free non-profits, under the umbrella of the Epoch Media Group, together with New Tang Dynasty Television.[18][21]

The newspaper's revenue has increased rapidly in recent years, from $3.8 million in 2016 to $8.1 million in 2017 (with spending of $7.2 million) and $12.4 million in 2018.[36] Tax documents of the Epoch Media Group indicated that between 2012 and 2016, the group received $900,000 from a principal at Renaissance Technologies, a hedge fund led by the conservative political donor Robert Mercer.[37] Chris Kitze, a former NBC executive and creator of the fake news website Before It's News who also manages a cryptocurrency hedge fund, joined the paper's board as vice president in 2017.[36]

A 2020 report in The New York Times called The Epoch Times' recent wealth "something of a mystery." Steve Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart News who produced a documentary with NTD, said "I’d give them a number" on a project budget and "they'd come back and say, 'We’re good for that number.'" Former employees say they were told The Epoch Times is financed by subscriptions, ads and donations from wealthy Falun Gong practitioners.[21]

Yeah, the video did a horrible job at actually displaying angry alt-righters. But, nevertheless, Wolfenstein 2 is a good game worth killing some Nazis for. It was also interesting to see who of the characters in the game are in real life. The title probably came from Vice wanting the Alt-Right to look into the game that shows their comrades being virtually blown to bits in high resolution.

I am aware of the history of it. There is no such thing as a legal Muslim ban, and so sure, this is probably the closest they can get to it, but nevertheless it is not a Muslim ban because a) it prohibits everyone from those countries, not just Muslims, and 2) there are still plenty of other countries that are predominantly Muslim that are not prohibited. They didn't even stop most countries that are are predominantly Muslim.

Again, I think it's dumb, hurts our country, doesn't make it any more safe, etc, but it's not a...

Ephesians 4:26 Be angry, and do not sin: do not let the sun go down on your wrath

There is room for righteous anger; it is right to get angry at injustice and sin. What we are not permitted to do is react inappropriately or harbor anger towards others. Jesus was righteously angry at His Fathers house being profaned, and he drove out those who were profaning it. That is why He said this after he drove them out:

Matthew 21:12 And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves

There was no sin there. Neither was Jesus in sin when He asked the Father to take away the cross. He was still submitted to the will of God, willing to do whatever He commanded:

Luke 22:41-42 And He was withdrawn from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and prayed, saying, “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done

God will tell us to do things that we don't want to do, or don't think we can do. We can't pretend we want to do something we don't want to do; the sin would be in refusing to do it

That is where you are at; you don't love God, and you don't want to do Gods will, and you are acutely aware that things would need to change in your life if you followed the Lord. You would rather spend a limited amount of time doing your will than an eternity with God. You don't have to pretend you feel any differently than you do, God knows.

The thing is, even though you feel that way God still loves you. He is reaching out to you in love and is calling you to commit your life to Him. I used to feel the same way you do, that is until He revealed His love to me. I wasn't even looking for it, and certainly had done nothing to deserve it. He didn't love me any more than He loves you, because while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. If you knew His love, instead of saying what you've said, you would wish more than anything that you had met God earlier in life. I know how you feel, believe me, but there is a lot to know about God that cannot be described in words, and has to be known through His personal revelation to you alone.

I hear that, I know that I've had to drive home stoned, real stoned. Didn't want to but had to. I know for a fact that I was super dangerous. Even after I ate my Wendy's hamburger & friends on someone's driveway (because I was so paranoid). I remember it started to rain - drove right through a flooded creek on the road at 50mph and definitely felt like I was swerving (even if I may not have been). Nevertheless, I know I can't handle driving while stoned and never have ever again (don't smoke pot much, anyway).

I also feel that pot changed some of my perceptions permanently for the better. This idea scares the living shit out of normie corporate people because any change to their mind is looked upon as bad, but they have no idea to begin with, they're ignorant to the facts or the experiences (look at me being judgmental haha). Many medicinal "drug" plants can really do people a lot of good in the short & long-term (I'm looking at you psilocybe & ayahuasca).

Different cultural values. Alright then, @SDGundamX

The claim is that these places are examples of islamic countries 'filled with nice people'. I'm suggesting that @StukaFox's list of vicious police-states is perhaps not best chosen to illustrate this view.

There's a difference in category, isn't there, between being muslim and being japanese or american. It would be absurd to say, "I am japanese because I believe..." just as it would, "I am a muslim because I happened to be born..."

Now, we can actually make sweeping and not the less factual statements about people on the basis of their shared characteristics. Japanese people are born within such a set of geographical coordinates, or to parents who hold citizenship with the state of japan, or have naturalised following a particular procedure. Millions of people lumped together in a single sentence, and without assuming they're all alike.

Muslims, like rats or serial killers, aren't all alike and they don't all believe exactly the same things. Nevertheless by definition there really are certain specific beliefs to which they must all hew. Or show me the muslim who doesn't believe that there's a god, or that muhammed received its doctrine.

If you find basic, universal islamic beliefs repugnant (as every decent person must) then it is correct, objectively correct, to generalise your antipathy to all muslims, however many millions there may be, however widely spread. The apology from number and diversity fails completely.

Not to take anything away from the pilot, but the EC-135s have some amazing flyby-wire in there that makes this a lot safer than in helicopters without it. Still amazing and dangerous, nevertheless.

You probably don't realise that that's what you said, but it is. After all, it sounds ridiculous when put explicitly.

Nevertheless, that is the undeniable implication of the claim that my negative opinion of others is false because these others may hold a similar opinion about me. It's the condition of the world that everyone thinks themselves righteous. The difference isn't made up by pretending therefore that everyone's the same. A distinction is drawn on a foundation of solid argument.

Here's some more things you've said:

1. Islam is immoral.
2. Muslims are just as good as anybody else.

I'm in a position to correct that contradiction in your thinking, but to do so you'll remember there's an affirmation I need you to make.

This is unbelievably sloppy thinking. You have a woeful understanding of no true scotsman as well as, apparently, the english language in general.

There are divorced catholics because catholic doctrine is not that it's literally impossible to obtain a divorce. Catholics who get divorces don't suffer sudden existential collapse and wink out of reality. There are no catholics who doubt and despise the bible, who believe that there's no god or historical jesus, and who participate in no catholic tradition. That would be contradictory, and oh look, it's possible to construct a 'no true...' statement that is nevertheless correct. There are no pro-lifers who believe abortion is fine and should be freely available to everyone. There are no democrats who are republicans. There are no jews who believe jesus is the son of god. There are no peaceful muslims.

Put that aside for now. You're arguing for the end of all moral judgement and distinction. Humans are not consistent, therefore it would be outrageous to condemn a car thief for stealing a car. After all, look at all the times he didn't steal a car. Fuck off.

It's possible to make generalisations about arbitrarily large groups that share common attributes. People who steal things are thieves. Apples are fruits. Muslims are violent.

By definition, all muslims share first the belief that mohammed was a good person and second the conviction to follow his example and instruction. By necessity, all muslims share the guilt for the evils of that man, and the evils brought into the world as a result of his legacy.

@transmorpher

It's a little difficult to 'debate' your comment, because the points that you address to me are numbered but don't reference to specific parts of my post. That's probably my fault as i was releasing frustration haphazardly and sarcastically, and that sarcasm wasn't aimed at you. All i can do is try and sum up whether i think we agree or disagree overall.

Essentially everything is a question of 'taste', even for you. There's no escaping our nature, most of us don't drink our own piss, many of us won't swallow our own blood, almost all of us have a flavour that we can't abide because we were fed it as a child. So yes, our decisions are defined by taste. But taste is decided by the food that is available to people, within reasonable distance of their house, at a price they find affordable according to the society around them, from a range of food that is decided by society around them. Your average person does not have the luxury to walk around a high street supermarket selecting the most humane and delicious foods. People get what they can afford, what they understand, what they can prepare and what is available. Our ancestors ate chicken because of necessity of their own kind, their children are exposed to chicken through no fault of their own, fast forward a few generations, and thus chicken becomes an affordable, accessible staple. Can we reach a compromise here? It may not be necessary for chickens to die to feed the human race, but it may be necessary for some people to eat chicken today because of their particular life.

I don't like the use of the phrase 'if i can do it, i know anyone can'. I think it's a mistake to deal in certainties, especially pertaining to lifestyles that you can't possibly know about without having lived them. Are you one of the many homeless people accepting chicken soup from a stranger because it's nourishing, cheap and easy for a stranger to buy, and keeps you warm on the streets? Are you a single mother with coeliac disease, a grumpy teenager and picky toddler who has 20 minutes to get to the supermarket and get something cooking? Or one of the millions using foodbanks in the UK (to our shame) now? I don't think you're willfully turning a blind eye to those people, i'm not tugging heart strings to do you a disservice. Maybe you're just fortunate you not only have the choice, but you have such choice that you can't imagine a life without it. I won't budge an inch on this one, you can't know what people have to do, and we have to accept life is not ideal.

And within that idealism and choice problem we can include illnesses that once again in IDEAL situations could survive without dead animals, nevertheless find it necessary to eat what they can identify and feel safe with.

Yes, those damn gluten hipsters drive me round the bend but only because they make people think that a LITTLE gluten is ok, it makes people take the problem less seriously (see Tumblr feminism... JOKE).

I agree that we must look at what action we can take now - and that is why i keep reminding you that we are not in an ideal world. If the veganism argument is to succeed then you must suggest a reasonable pathway to go from how we are now to whatever situation you would prefer. My "ideal farm" description was just me demonstrating the problem - that you need to show us your blueprint for how we start again without killing animals and feeding everyone we have.

And on that subject, your suggestions need to be backed by real research, otherwise you don't have any real plan. "It's fair to say there is very little risk" is a nice bit of illustrative language but it is not backed by any fact or figure and so i'm compelled to do my Penn and Teller impression and call bullshit. As of right now, the life expectancy of humans is better than it has ever been. It is up to you to prove that changing the diet of 7 billion people will result in neutrality or improvement of health and longevity. That proof must come in the form of large statistical analyses and thorough science. I don't want to sound like i'm being a dick, but any time you state something like that as a fact or with certainty, it needs to be backed up by something. I'm not nit picking and asking for common knowledge to have a citation, but things like this do:

-- 70% of farmland claim
-- 'fair to say very little risk' claim
-- meat gives you cancer claim - i accept it may have a carcinogenic effect but i'll remind you so does breathing, joss-sticks, broccoli, apples and water
-- 'the impact to the planet would be immense' claim - in what way, and what would be the downsides in terms of economy, productivity, health, animal welfare (where are all the animals going to be sent to retire as of day 1?)
-- etc. etc.

Oh, and a cow might get its protein from plants, but it walks around a field all day eating grass, chewing the cud and having sloppy shits with 4 stomachs and enzymes that i don't have................. I'm a bit puzzled by this one... I probably can't survive on what an alligator or a goldfish eats, but i can survive on parts of an alligator or fish. I can't eat enough krill in a day to keep me going, but i can let a whale do it for me...?

Well there YOU go.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but WW1 ended well over 25 years ago, so your repeated contention that 'dogfights ended in ww1' so we don't need any dogfighting capabilities is clearly 100% wrong. I hope you'll stop repeating it now, as it's ridiculously annoying to have a conversation with someone who agrees that their position is wrong, but continues to stand on that position nevertheless.
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/07/06/usaf_promised_the_f-4_and_f-35_would_never_dogfight_108180.html
and (the last one mentioned here is INSANE)
http://www.cracked.com/article_19396_5-aerial-battles-that-put-top-gun-to-shame.html

I hope you've also arrived at the position now that, if they have to change the testing parameters/minimum acceptable requirements to turn massive fails into 'success' that it fails miserably and can't possibly ever be prepared for real deployment and has become nothing but a massively expensive, poorly preforming jobs program.