Intolerant of newts,
And truth.
And honesty.
And evidence.
And knowledge.
And reason.
And logic.
And tolerance.

Edit: Oh, and intolerant of people who don’t want to be shot at on the freeway.

And sorry to have to tell you, but you are both toxic AND intolerant. As a newt, I know toxic.

Also so sorry to be sesquipedalian, but you have the advantage there, being able to say all you think you know on a subject in under 144 characters. I can’t. Life is details, details you wish to ignore because they invalidate your arguments.

Besides, as you know from experience, it’s much easier to just make unproven claims, “Everyone knows Trump is an incestuous pedophile.” Than it is to disprove them (your turn).

Just think how lonely you would be without me. No one else wants to engage with you at all. I know, with help, you can fly higher than an eagle…..

I am the wind beneath your wings

Congratulations! Your video, Eminem's Dog - Without me LIVING IN 2077, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 68 Badge!

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Eminem-Without-Me

Eminem's Dog - Without me LIVING IN 2077 has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash on that post.

Eminem: Without Me has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

Your video, Eminem's Dog - Without me LIVING IN 2077, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Lol. Bait you?! Bwaaahahahaha.
Nope.
I was hoping you would have a tiny bit of consistency and admit to yourself that any diet that includes (according to you) 350g of red meat a week (with no limit on white meat) must, by definition, not be vegan or vegetarian, and admitting that, that you might have stopped pretending they're related.
Glad I checked, because as feared you did not display that kind of consistency.
Apparently you think that's an invitation to argue that a meat inclusive "plant based diet" IS vegan instead of just agreeing with the obvious. I expect you'll continue to pretend the health benefits of plant based diets translate to health benefits of being vegan, knowing full well they aren't related at all. Hmmmm.

You're more than welcome, but I think your vote totals say a lot about how persuasive your arguments are with or without me contradicting you.

I have to strongly disagree with the suggestion that animals are killed and tortured for my "taste preferences" and "pleasure".

It gives me no pleasure that an animal has to die for me to eat. My pleasure in the consumption of that animal is a fleeting, automatic chemical reaction triggered in my body. In an evolutionary sense, i only receive this pleasure because it prolongs the survival of my species to feel it.

Most of these arguments reek of over simplification and ignorance to the reality of the society westerners live in.

In ideal conditions, i would eat meat from animals that i tended, who died of natural causes (mostly old age i assume) which i would personally butcher. In reality, it is not possible and even if it were possible for one person, it would not be possible for every person - we have limited space, limited resources, limits placed by law, limits on our time. As well as the cost of the land, I would have to hope enough animals died naturally to sell enough humane meat to pay taxes on the land and maintain my farming equipment, buy grain for the animals and so on. Or maybe i could grow my own grain and use primitive DIY tools, but then i'd probably need help for all the farming i'd have to do every day and now i'd need enough animals to die to feed three, so more land, more grain... Oops, it looks like this is getting complicated doesn't it. Shall we keep going until we reach a society of 70 odd million people, or should we consider that the problem is far more complicated than comments here would care to acknowledge?

Furthermore gluten is often the primary protein source for vegans, but i have a disease that requires me to avoid that protein in entirety. The smug, holier-than-thou field radiating from certain commenters here will i'm sure extend far enough to condescendingly say "ah, but you can be a vegan and avoid gluten, you poor, uneducated, smiling murderer!" Yes, and you could live your life without ever being touched by the sun's rays, or sail a small sailboat without ever getting wet, not even a droplet. And how can we know what effect gluten-free-veganism may have on public health when it is extended to a population of 7 billion? What a dangerous experiment to salivate over - reckless and potentially harmful in a way that a butcher could never hope to be.

It would be wonderful if the world was ideal. I wouldn't have this disease, and all people of the world could enjoy their own 10 acre farm and eat only those animals whose time had come. Unfortunately when i am abroad, away from home, the only source of protein that i can entirely trust might perhaps be a roast chicken. And i will eat it, the only true pleasure from which i take is that i will not spend the next three days doubled up in bed.

There are people worse off than me, but i don't know enough about their situation to use it as a point in this discussion. To people like me, the language used by some people here makes me think of someone dancing around at a diabetics convention shouting "I can't believe you losers have to use insulin! I hope you all realise that drug addicts use needles!"

I reject any notion that these people have a moral advantage over me. Have any of them ever heard of walking a mile in another man's shoes, or does their narrow mind only reach as far as "ME"?

By the way, plants are also alive. Or is this about sentient life? Shall we move on to abortion then, if non-sentient life is ok to end? Shall we have the philosophical discussion about degrees of sentience and types of sentience and whether we can even know if a plant has its own brand of sentience? If yes, let's try to at least do it without you being smug and in return without me being sarcastic.

Worrying about how people treat vegans? How about the language used to describe people who have no choice in the matter, lest that choice be never leave your own house and eat only this very small list of things which you may or may not find too disgusting to stomach? Am i to live in misery and squander my life so that a chicken could have an extra 2 years to run in circles? This issue is not fucking black and white despite the attempts to paint it so.

I don't think the word "badass" is right.

I think of his poor wife sitting alone without him, terrified in her last minutes. He survived and I guess that's lucky, but I would want to be with my family in something like that. I don't think I could live with myself knowing that they died without me because I wanted to capture something on video.

Happy Birthday Laurence! I suppose I'm late for the party ... so I hope you carried on without me. Here's wishing you an excellent year ahead

That depends on your definition of 'often'. Maybe about once a week on average.
It seems you're missing the point. Sometimes that person may interact with my dog without me being present (like in this video), offering no possibility to instruct them about my dogs diet requirements. When I am present, they almost always ask first, and I ask them about the treat. If it's grain free, she gets a free treat. If not, I usually offer the person a grain free treat of my own to give to my dog (person still gets to interact with dog, dog gets treat, every one's happy). I do not rush out screaming at people over mistakes, but I do tell delivery people about her diet and ask them to please not give her the wrong treats, or she'll suffer for it later. They have all complied, but some have needed reminding.
Then there are random people on the street/in the park with boundary issues that just come up from behind and interact with random dogs on leashes without asking, or reach through a partially open car window to pet and feed a dog waiting inside, I find that rude and inappropriate, treat or not. Maybe that's my problem and not theirs, but someone needs to explain why if I'm to understand.
I do it for my dog, not my sense of control. It's not easy, cheap, or fun for me to keep her grain free. She breaks out in hives if she eats too much grain product. It's like someone offering a random non-speaking child some reses...not knowing if child might have a deadly peanut allergy. I understand it's intended as friendly, but that's why you should ask first, it might be harmful or deadly.

Just fail dude.
I never claimed to be an expert in geology, just to have enough knowledge to understand the science involved, unlike you.
EDIT: but your millionaire uncles HAVE talked about money with you, right...so you understand, say, interest?
Uniformitarianism as stated was proven false in the early 1800's. Many factors are involved in the time frame for feature formations, they are not uniform.
Yes, you are consistently anti-science here. You completely ignore the scientific method when making obviously false claims like 'that proves it was caused by a giant flood'.
Oh dude, no where in your fairy tale book does it ever say the earth is 6000 years old, you've been duped by idiots with agendas. Give it up, even your religious 'leaders' have realized the insanity of that stance and the requirement to suspend reality for it to be correct. Try listening to them.
There is absolutely zero evidence for a 'world wide flood' unless you can create some out of thin air with your level of faith in ridiculousness. There is not a single whit of actual evidence, which would take the form of a single, homogeneous layer of sediment world wide at the same geologic age. Doesn't exist. Sorry, you're just plain wrong about what you claim.
The 'evidence' in this video is evidence that landslides happen fast, not that layered non-volcanic sediments can be put down in tens of thousands of distinct and differing layers in an instant, then massive erosion can happen also in an instant, as you claim it does. True enough, erosion can happen fast, but doesn't often, and sedimentary layering simply can't...neither can fossilization. (oops, forgot, the devil put those stone bones there to fool me...but since I AM the devil, I'm not fooled)
Your claim that there is a homogeneous sediment layer all over the world is a complete fabrication. It does not exist. If it did, that would be HUGE scientific discovery heard on every network and science program for years to come, not one only heard about in church and/or afterwards in the lobby.
Once again...fail....as I suspect you did in your science classes.

EDIT:...and I love that your 'proof' video includes Uluru, the oldest large rock in the known world, which is proven by numerous differing methods to be well over 550 Million years old (that's how long ago it was rotated, it existed well before then) I guess the devil/gawd made that too, in order to confuse scientists? I'm not going to watch more time wasting ridiculous unscientific propaganda by the scientifically challenged, so it goes unwatched.
and good job with the cut and paste in order to quote me and answer me without me noticing,...sorry, didn't work.
SECOND EDIT: Do you not notice that on one side you claim uniformitarianism is wrong, but you also insist it's held as a major tenant of modern geology? If it's that obvious to you, an admitted lay person, don't you think it might be more obvious to professionals?

he definitely looks like hes having fun. My dogs are "trained" to do "stuff" as well, but sometimes when they are just in the yard by themselves, I see them doing that "stuff" without me there or that I'm even watching from inside. They actually like to do some of the stuff I taught them with each other. Animals like this are a lot smarter than we give them credit.

thanks meatbag! i guess that the google set "Block third-party cookies and site data" on by default without me knowing.

Why would you think that message was directed at you ? Your horse seems a little high if you think that was refering to you specifically. It did take me a wopping couple seconds, the fact it happened to me as well is why I posted that. What turned my " oh for fuck sakes" crank for my video analogy was this phrase

" Why can't videosift remember me for more than two weeks.
I have to log on to this site soo often. Not more than once a day or week, but still so many times"

What that said to me is that you have a problem with logging in once every 7-10 days. So every 7-10 days you have to log in, okay, I can understand how you want to fix the problem, but your wording just sounded like a crying little wiener wanting everything to be perfect. The video has jack all to do with your immediate problem it had to do with the comparison of people bitching about stupid little shit that they should just be happy that it works in the first place.


But that second reply was nothing to do with you. I figured it was time I let you in on the little secret. Lets say you sign in not once a day or once a week but once every ten days, thast three times a month and you make it seems like such great efforts were taken to do so.

CHEERIO !
In reply to this comment by sanderbos:
You just can't let it go can you ;-)

Here's how I use videosift. I open the homepage, then open all videos I want to check out in new tabs. So then I have like 10 tabs open, the result of a selection process.

It is only then that I discover that I am not logged in, and then I have 10 tabs open without me being logged in, and having to log on on every page. Plus, even though the login process is partly Ajax, it is not all Ajax, so you should not attempt to log on when the video is playing, because then it will reload the page. It is frigging annoying, and this is not rocket science to implement.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Happened to me earlier like it did to Sarzy.
Took me a whopping six seconds to enter my info.