Edited:
I was the first to call that assumption in the description out, but you seemed to double down on the sentiment rather than disagree.

If that was meant as sarcasm, mocking the original description, that's why we have the "sarcasm" button, or winking emoji, or words to that effect, because if you don't hit it and instead write something insulting and stupid, then it seems you, like millions of others, MEAN it, especially when you go on with 2 paragraphs pre-defending your statement from the attacks you can see will follow.

I mentioned your qualification and explained how it's no excuse, so clearly I read it.


EDIT: Try reading your original post again without just assuming the first two sentences are mocking sarcasm and see if it sounds outrageous to you...then see if you have said anything to contradict that way of reading it.
BTW, "I was responding to that" does not mean "I was mocking that" or "I was disagreeing with that", imo.

A+ for effort. No sarcasm. For real.

@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...?

The only box next to the preview button is one for sarcasm...

I could go either way without wider context, I was basing my comments pretty much entirely on my past experience with such people.

However going only off the vid, the couple filming make it clear they hadn't actually paid for the sauces yet, suggesting that the way they asked had caused the conflict if you see what I mean.

i.e. it wasn't withholding already paid for services

When I said entitlement, I really just meant that it seemed like they couldn't handle the idea that they didn't get exactly what they demanded regardless of how they asked or behaved. But it was purely intuition from past experience. Without wider context I couldn't say with any conviction.

I don't have a lot of time for people who conveniently forget you are still a human being just because you work somewhere. I'd always put basic human respect first and never had much time for "the customer is always right" thing if you know what I mean. (I'm not the best guy to hire for such a job as a result)

I think it would be a more civil society if customers were also held responsible for their actions by more companies, but I recognise this is probably hopelessly wishful thinking.

I do recognise that much of our culture is not set up that way, that's why I consider him a braver man than I in some sense. I would just pussy out in favour of economic stability and whatnot.

I would be foolish if I expected things to not work as you have described. But I did feel a little swelling of pride to see the guy appearing to put his dignity before economics. (or just me projecting)

Probably not a smart move, but laudable perhaps in its own little way.
If the job actually matters that much to him, then yes that was clearly self destructive. Though I felt there was a healthy dose of sarcasm when he referred to it as his nestegg. Perhaps I just misread that.

And again, I may just be projecting all of this.

As for the last part, I really just meant that in the grand scheme of things this probably shouldn't matter that much to them. Either they were being assholes, or this guy had bigger problems than they did with his life.

If it had been a habitual problem that could be another matter, but I see no suggestion of that.

Could so easily go the other way, just that the couple instantly set off my "entitled asshole alarm" for whatever reason. It's usually right, but I don't for a moment think it forms the basis of a valid argument. That's why I went to great pains to use only ambiguous language.

I reserve the right to be wrong at all times in life.

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.

That guy is ONLY saved if a HUGE volcano goes off or a good-sized meteorite hits us...

Or, you know, nuclear war.

I fI was Bill Nye I would amend these bets with atmospheric readings of ash @ so many parts per million (at the point it really is WAY too high!). Or also amending it for debris consistent with a large meteorite hit (a few different choices in the ring to measure to see if it's a meteorite too); so if "x" per milllion is too high in the atmosphere, again the year is bunck (the decade may become bunck all depending the levels of both events).

But, the worst, nuclear fallout from what "may be" WWIII or a smaller "civil conflict", like Pakistan and India could top the meters pretty high with worldwide fallout if they drop a good ten or so (again this is based off the material used to create the bomb and once more it's parts per million in the atmosphere combined with, how much?)...

No matter what Bill Nye is right, and even if these type of "small-term" events slow it down momentarily, after the planet helps to clean to out of the atmosphere we have a big issue on hand because some of that stuff WILL stay and then Bill Nye can show you how in two years (and as we know, it could be much longer), or the time it truly takes to clean it out leaves us with an atmosphere that is now even worse...

AIM FOR THE PARTIAL WIN BOYS AND GIRLS!!! I know you all want zombies (radioactive, Japanese spiritual based demons and shinigami here to try to kill us all until every boy and girl 15 years old or so become shounen trope mystical power holders made to save our world from the oncoming onslaught of Donald Trump and Putin phantasms and demons, truly horrific--college students may apply; grownups may gain insight into how to pull off the most powerful abilities that they must teach to the "chosen ones" to use it to defeat either Putin or The Trump (spiritual fighter, capable of killing people even with his TERRIBLE "slams", fighting power: 0, defense: every fanboy on Earth!)--or how to use "super tactics with the "main-group" who'll have stories written about them in their local High Scool Paper every week: in the American, Japanese, Russian, and European branches (needed for Putin, since he writes great stories explaining how each of us suck ass and even though we try it is ALWAYS Putin, riding in on a Velociraptor with a railgun that's able to drive those evil bastards out, especially when he gets off the horse and makes the wrestling techniques and signature move, crossing his arms in an "X" and slamming down over the side of his genitals (causing all watching to be confused and easily dismembered in twenty minutes... The glory of dawn continues in the next 4-6 hours before dawn...

SO... What exactly do you guys believe you should vote for? I say Vote Bill Nye and Vote often. Did you know that in both those "metaverses" Bill Nye becomes akin to Dr. Strange. Great because he protects ALL of us from this world with an extremely powerful spell--as he IS the only person here that knows just what in the hell is happening.

All hail the kid's scientist, through Sarah Palin on the "happiness tour bus" to Putin. He LOVES her. Especially listening to her talk. Ceaseless entertainment...!


I decided to list this as "sarcasm", BUT there is SO MUCH that isn't. Sometimes you have to hide the truth in reality...err...not reality...

I'm trapped.

In explaining why I am trapped I'd also be undermining my reasons for not ticking the sarcasm box. My only recourse is to double down:

- because I was being deadly serious.

Your move.

Then why didn't they use the sarcasm check box?

Some people are just so afraid these days to admit that sarcasm has far surpassed their cognitive ability and intellect.

I'm assuming this is a joke, but you didn't click the sarcasm box.

"The mob will always vote to take stuff from the minority."

Oh for fuck's sake... I have no words...

I guess he's right, the 1% having to pay any tax at all really is EXACTLY like the Holocaust.

</sarcasm>

Uber and Lyft wouldn't exist if the Taxi system wasn't horrible beyond belief. Fix the medallion/license issues and they both go out of business. Otherwise, even if both ride sharing companies go out of business, people will still create some type of app to get around the shitty monopoly that is currently in place.

As far as trained professionals with background checks, yeah, a day's worth of training is amazing (sarcasm). Also, most taxi drivers go through a minimal (if any) amount of background checking. For instance, here in Austin, Tx, it was reported that fifty-three drivers who failed background checks to become Uber drivers had been issued chauffeur’s licenses by the City of Austin.

TV show, obviously not real people. Its meant to be funny. Real Trump supporters are more interesting.

The constant stream of sarcasm is a bit weary.

Why would anyone go to a Trump rally to protest? Who there would ever consider another point of view?

I think everyone should be trained on guns.
I was trained on them and although I had some desire to own one single. I have no desire to own one with a kid. The statistics are against me.

So just like the chinsy sex education...we get gun training
For everyone.

See I was trained to not even point an unarmed weapon at anything I did not want to destroy.

Use guns enjoy them ....but be trained.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safety#Rules_and_mindset

I am totally serious no sarcasm checkbox.