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.

Well, saying "a piece of paper" in the mythbusters' case might be bit misleading, but yeah, it's possible to fold an acre of paper more than 7 times =)

When did an "acre" become a unit of length?

My point. Honesty would go a long way, much farther than exaggeration to make a point. Things are bad enough without any need for exaggeration clouding the waters. The video strongly implied that this is how all milk is produced, while, as you indicated, as much as 50% is not produced using these methods. Those 50% should be mentioned, IMO, and applauded for taking the extra time and effort to give their animals a better, at least comfortable if not free, life.

Your stats sound like a reason to buy milk...from local smaller producers. Otherwise only the giant factory farms that are invariably the worst at care for the animals will be left. A better solution in my eyes is to support those doing it 'right'.

Your stats are confusing. In one paragraph, you say that 50% of milk is made by 'smaller' (<500 cow-'good') farms, then you have other statistics about tiny (<100 cow) farms. If under 500 cow farms are USUALLY the "good" kind, why mention the under 100 cow stat, unless it's just to show how few there are in what's likely the 'best' category? (or is it to include my family's farm techniques in the equation, since we've discussed it before?...so you know, we had 200+- head on 300 acres when we had them, free range...now we (well, they, I moved to California) have about 100+- angora goats) Again, the second set of stats would also seem to me to be a good argument for supporting local, small farmers that take much better care of their animals (and produce a better product), rather than a good reason to boycott farm products altogether....but that's just me.

EDIT: Can we agree that the tactic of, without warning, showing horrid animal abuse to people who love animals is not a good way to get them on your side?

I'm sorry, you're wrong.
Not all farms treat their animals badly. Our Turkeys, for instance, had the run of 300 acres, as did our cattle, goats, and sheep. The chickens had a pen for their own protection, but one larger than an average house with a large roost house they had free access to and from. The all had proper veterinary treatments. All in all, they had a much better life than many humans with the exception of the freedom to leave the property.
Most children in the world live in worse conditions than the animals at OUR farm, and have a MUCH more painful, lingering death. The only atrocity about the situation to me is that there are so damn many human children.
And mentally handicapped people aren't animals. It may be true, forcing naked, mentally handicapped (or non-mentally handicapped) children to be outside 24/7 might be considered abuse...doing so with an animal is not.
Beyond that, you are making HUGE mistaken assumptions to make your point, mistaken assumptions about 1) how 100% of farmers treat their animals and 2) how 100% of parents treat their children.

Ahh...and my sustenance is more important to me than another being's minimal suffering....that's how a food web works, and it doesn't make me an asshole, it makes me an omnivore.

I've been pondering this a lot recently. Basically, I am the sole supervisor of a complex money making system - I've watched the Vice President manipulate the money in strange ways to make himself look efficient - another bullet-point on his LinkedIn page. All the while I'm not making anywhere close to what I should and they refuse to give me a raise - even though I single handedly bring in about $100k every week.

So - I just started coming to work super late EVERY DAY. And when I get called out for it, or threatened I just smile and say "definitely" in a real snarky way to anything they say because I know I have their fucking ballsacks in a cage and they can't do fucking shit about it.

So in the meantime, I bought 17 acres in the Santa Cruz mountains, it's completely off the grid, solar, grey water (still get good hotspot reception for sifting). Any day now, I'm just going to walk off the job and royally fuck the slave owner capitalist scum fucks and start living like a true patriot. Can't wait.

Lets amp this up to clear my acre of leafs

The manual approach is faster, right up until you start talking acres...

I always wonder what the person did to get them in that situation. Yes, a lot of times it is something beyond their control but I think that a lot of people also get into a situation due to their own stupidity and belief that hey I've got a cell phone and can just call to get rescued if I get in over my head.

I have always felt that if you are going to hike/climb/ski etc in a public park or facility that you should be required to buy "hikers/climbers/skiers" insurance. Put up $10,000 cash bond or buy a rescue insurance policy for x dollars and we will come rescue your butt off the side of a cliff/depths of a canyon/acres of forest or we can bill you for the rescue later. I understand that you have the right to go perform these things in the wild but I also think that you should take some financial responsibility for the cost of saving your butt if/when things go wrong.

ONE ACRE OF DESTRUCTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude-Sell yer Cali-pad and move somewhere else to get the land you need-Way lower taxes and most-likely no state taxes either. 200-400K for instance in several states'll get ya a huge home on 20 acres....Plus, you get to ditch California and live someplace cool!

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

> "By your logic, taxes are voluntary, you can choose not to live in the US and you don't get thrown in jail for not paying them."

Not true at all. The US will tax you wherever you live. "If you don't like it move" is totally different from "if you don't like it, don't buy this condo." The condo has an owner selling it under some conditions. The "country" or "state" has no "owner" whatever you might think.

> "Again, you claim you don't care about my thoughts, but you continue to prove you do by responding"

I grant you that.

> "but we do have control, we simply need to assert it in thoughtful ways, not react out of fear of the possible future. That's my viewpoint anyway."

You say government sucks and yet, you say something to the effect of, "It doesn't feel that way from where I sit, at my reserved table at the Bohemian Grove, surrounded by cool people, not you losers."

Go ahead and "control" the government. Like I said, no one's stopping you. Do whatever you want from your beautiful acre of orchard and 100% paid for home. Enjoy it.

And if you don't like my tax ideas, who cares what you think?

However you justify your love for the state, that's ok. You're entitled to it. You aren't entitled to any actions that attempt to force your beliefs on me or anyone. Of course you'll try. But as Satochi Nakamoto (or any plutocrat) has (implicitly) said: :-P Good luck with that.

It seems more and more that libertarians and plutocrats, while not in agreement about means, do share the same goal: to be left alone by "the people."

> ""Um...colonies are places 'captured' and then ruled by foreign governments...that's how they work."

More private school wisdom? So sad. I actually grew up in a colony.

> "They were quite upset at taxation without representation (not in taxation at all, get it right please)."

They were upset about a 3% tax dude. 3%.

> "Interesting you again completely ignore the fact that you use the services you shirk from paying for (in any underhanded way possible), and typical of those that think taxes are 'wrong' in their entirety or concept."

This from the guy who says he pays little in taxes?

I can't speak for them, but I know quite a number of folks who would find it quite laughable that you think that you contribute your "fair share" to the roads you use as compared to that which they contribute relative to their use of the roads. But I guess that you can convince yourself of anything with enough confusion.

""'Bottom of the social ladder'? Hmmmm. Doesn't feel that way where I sit, on my beautiful acre of orchard in my 100%paid for home surrounded by friends and family. I only wish this was the bottom, then no one could complain about their status.""

Like I said, you may enjoy your station. Some statists are actually benefitting from the system.