If the remarks being contradicted are not only smug they're also ridiculous, devoid of fact, racist, and or dangerously stupid (like insisting in May that Coronavirus is a hoax that's not dangerous and is a "nothing burger", and everyone should be back at work), and contradicting them with facts and references and +- 1/4 the disrespect the original remarks contained makes people vote for Trump, that does indicate they were already trumpsters imo.

Edit: It's like Democrats have a high bar to clear, but Republicans have no depth too deep to stoop to.

Trump changes Bob's beliefs daily, every time he changes a position Bob changes his belief to make the new position seem reasonable to him. He is not consistent. No other opinion matters to him.

I don't hold beliefs, I have theories. It's easy to change your theory when given new information, I do all the time. Beliefs don't work that way, so I avoid them as much as possible.

Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious. I would eat people if they were raised and fed better, but we are polluted beyond recovery imo.

You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to. Killing for sport seems worse, so do kill "shelters", puppy mills, habitat destruction, ocean acidification, etc....I could go on for pages with that list. I try to eat free range locally farmed on family farms meat, not factory farm meat. I know the difference in quality.

I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" (yes, someone insisted that was true because they didn't care it wasn't, it helped scare people, I contradicted him every time he lied.) The difference is, I could agree with some of their points that weren't gross exaggeration, I agreed that excessive meat eating is horrible for people, I agree that most meat is produced under horrific conditions, I would not agree that ALL meat is unhealthy in any amount and ALL meat is tortured it's entire lifetime because I know from personal experience that's just not true. We raised cattle, free range cattle, in the 70's. They were happy cows that had an enjoyable life roaming our ranch until the day they went to market, a life they wouldn't have if people didn't eat meat.

I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me. The fact checking part of my brain goes on high alert when talking with them about health or other issues involved in meat production, with excellent reason.

Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

Here's the thing, Bob consistently trolls in a condescending, self congratulatory, and bat shit crazy way. Turnabout is fair play.
As the only person willing to reply to him for long stretches, I know him. I've had many private conversations with him where he's far more reasonable, honest, willing to admit mistakes, etc. (Something I gave up when he applauded Trump lying under oath because "only a dummy tells the truth under oath if the truth might harm them, Trump winning!") When someone is so anti truth and snide, they deserve some snidely delivered truth in return. Bob has proven he's undeserving of the civility you want him to receive, it's never returned.

Bob does not take anything in from any source not pre approved by Trump. I've tried for a decade, and now know he only comes here to troll the libtards. It doesn't matter if you show him video proof and expert opinions, he'll ignore them and regurgitate more nonsense claiming the opposite of reality. He's not trying to change minds, in case you're confused. He's hoping to trick people who for whatever reason refuse to investigate his factless hyper biased claims and amplify the madness. That he comes here to do that, a site he regularly calls a pure liberal site (it's not) is proof enough to convict him of just trolling.

Trolls deserve derision.

I spent years ignoring his little jabs, insults, derisions, and whinging and trying hard to dispassionately contradict his false claims with pure facts and references, it was no different then.
While privately he would admit he's wrong, he would then publicly repeat the claims he had just admitted were bullshit. When he started supporting perjury from the highest position on earth down as long as they're Republican but still calls for life in prison for democrats that he thinks lied even not under oath, he lost any right to civil replies imo. He bought it when Republican representatives said publicly in interviews that they have no obligation to be truthful with the American people, and he applauds it and repeats their lies with glee.

Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies. How long are you capable of rebutting them with just fact and references when they are smug, snide, insulting, dangerous, and seriously delusional if not just purely dishonest?

Rebuttal?

Newtboy eats people. Swallows people like an octopus lol

Lol. The narrator sounds quite ominous...dark and foreboding. Judging by his tone, I expected him to finish by saying "in that one magical hour, the fireflies of Mexico eat people."
*promote a *quality natural event. Nature's fireworks.

No, that's not even vegetarian, certainly not even close to vegan. Educated doctors know the difference, and any who are the least bit confused should be completely ignored because they have less health knowledge than you get from 3rd grade health class, or they are liars.

So you agree, they're liars, pretending their focus is your health when it's clearly only about animal health.

Really? Eating just under 1 lb (350g) of red meat a week is Vegan to you!? Lol! I guess I'm vegan then, a leather wearing, red and white meat eating, insect and gopher killing vegan. There's no limit for chicken or fish either! Wow, veganism has sure changed in the last few weeks....or perhaps you're just talking out of your ass.

Sounds to me like most doctors include large amounts of meat and dairy in that plant based diet you're so fond of pushing as vegan.

If just under 1lb red meat a week = plant based diet=vegan, all these benefits you mention should be realized today for almost everyone, because most meat eating people eat less red meat than that.
Edit: had my numbers wrong, that's less than 1 lb red meat a week, not 3. Still not vegan by far though.

He used the PCRM's own words to show them as liars, not industry hit pieces. Pretty hard to say they're honest about their goals and intentions when their own tax filings prove they aren't.

Freedom of religion is independent of civilian armament.
History shows that religious persecution is normal for humanity, and in most cases it's perpetrated by the government. Sometimes to consolidate power (with government tie-ins to the main religion), and sometimes to pander to the grimace of a majority.

Ironically, in this country, freedom of religion only exists due to armed conflict, albeit merely as a side effect of independence from a religiously homogeneous ruling power.



It's true that Catalonians would likely have been shot at if they were armed.
However, likewise, the Spanish government will never grant the Catalans democracy so long as the Catalans are not armed - simply because it doesn't have to.
(*Barring self suicidal/sacrificial behavior on part of the Catalans that eventually [after much suffering] embarrasses the government into compliance - often under risk that 3rd parties will intervene if things continue)

When the government manufactures consent, it will be first in line to claim that people have democratic freedom. When the government fails to manufacture consent, it will crack down with force.

At the end of the day, in government, might makes right. Laws are only words on paper, the government's arms are what make the laws matter.

Likewise, democracy is no more than an idea. The people's force of arms (or threat thereof) is what assert's the people's dominance over the government.



You can say the police/military are stronger and it would never matter, however, the size of an [armed] population is orders of magnitude larger than the size of an army. Factor in the fact that the people need to cooperate with the government in order to support and supply the government's military. No government can withstand armed resistance of the population at large. This is one of the main lessons from The Prince.

Civilian armament is a bulwark against potentially colossal ills (albeit ills that come once every few generations).

Look at NK. The people get TV, radio, cell, from SK. They can look across the river and see massive cities on the Chinese side. They know they have to play along with the charade that their government demands. At the end of the day, without guns, things won't change.

Look at what happened during the Arab Spring. All these unarmed nations turned to external armed groups to fight for them to change their governments. All it accomplished was them becoming serfs to the invited 3rd parties. This is another lesson from The Prince : always take power by your own means, never rely on auxiliaries, because your auxiliaries will become your new rulers.






Below is general pontification. No longer a reply.
------------------------------------------------------------------



Civilian armament does come with periodic tragedies. Those tragedies suck. But they're also much less significant than the risks of disarmament.
(Eg. School shootings, 7-11 robberies, etc -versus- Tamils vs Sri Lankan government, Rohingya vs Burmese government. etc.)

Regarding rifles specifically (all varieties combined), there is no point in arguing magnitudes (Around 400 lives per year - albeit taken in newsworthy large chunks). 'Falling out of bed' kills more people, same is true for 'Slip and fall'. No one fears their bed or a wet floor.

Pistols could go away and not matter much.
They have minimal militia utility, and they represent almost the entirety of firearms used in violent crime. (Albeit used to take lives in a non newsworthy 1 at a time manner)

(In the U.S.) If tragedy was the only way to die (otherwise infinite lifespan), you would live on average 9000 years. Guns, car crashes, drownings, etc. ~All tragedies included. (http://service.prerender.io/http://polstats.com/?_escaped_fragment_=/life#!/life)






A computer learning example I was taught:

Boy walking with his mom&dad down a path.
Lion #1 jumps out, eats his dad.
(Data : Specifically lion #1 eats his father.)
The boy and mom keep walking
Lion #2 jumps out, eats his mother.
(Data : Specifically lion #2 eats his mother)
The boy keeps walking
He comes across Lion #3.

Question : Should he be worried?

If you are going to generalize [the first two] lions and people, then yes, he should be worried.

In reality, lions may be very unlikely to eat people (versus say, a gazelle). But if you generalized from the prior two events, you will think they are dangerous.

(The relevance to computer learning is that : Computers learn racism, too. If you include racial data along with other data in a learning algorithm, that algorithm can and will be able to make decisions based on race. Not because the software cares - but because it can analyze and correlate.)

(Note : This is also why arguing religion is likely futile. If a child is raised being told that everything is as it is because God did it, then that becomes their basis for reality. Telling them that their belief in god is wrong, is like telling the boy in the example that lions are statistically quite safe to people. It challenges what they've learned.)



I mentioned this example, because it illustrates learning and perception. And it segways into my following analogy.



Here's a weird analogy, but it goes like this :

(I'm sure SJW minded people will shit themselves over it, but whatever)

"Gun ownership in today's urban society" is like "Black people in 80's white bred society".

2/3 of the population today has no contact with firearms (mostly urban folk)
They only see them on movies used to shoot people, and on the news used to shoot people.
If you are part of that 2/3, you see guns as murder tools.
If you are part of the remaining 1/3, you see guns like shoes or telephones - absolutely mundane daily items that harm nobody.

In the 80's, if you were in a white bred community, your only understanding of black people would be from movies where they are gangsters and shoot people, and from the nightly news where you heard about some black person who shot people.
If you were part of an 80's white bred community, you saw black people as dangerous likely killers.
If you were part of an 80's black/mixed community, you saw black people as regular people living the same mundane lives as anyone else.

In either case, you can analytically know better. But your gut feelings come from your experience.



Basically, I know guns look bad to 2/3 of the population. That won't change. People's beliefs are what they are.
I also know that the likelihood of being in a shooting is essentially zero.
I also know that history repeats itself, and -just in case- I'd rather live in an armed society than an unarmed society. Even if I don't carry a gun.

-scheherazade

Well, I must admit you have a point. I don't think that way, growing up around animals that were food, and doing the work ourselves, not hiding from it, but most people don't have that experience.
My opinion is that ending the intolerable suffering some animals are subjected to is more important than ending meat eating, so I suggest trying to convince people to use smaller, family farmed meats that are more likely to have proper, 'humane' treatment and death....but not by shaming them with images of abused animals or blaming them for eating the wrong thing. That only gets people defensive. Simply explaining how the better treatment creates a MUCH better, tastier, 'cleaner' (of hormones and anti-biotics) meat that's worth the extra effort, and extra cost, should work better. Appeal to people's unwavering belief that they deserve better, and steer them in a direction that also works for your goal.
I don't think you'll ever convince a high percentage of meat eaters to go vegetarian, much less vegan, and I think that guilt and shame make people want to fight about the issue rather than do anything. But that just, like, my opinion, man. ;-)

All this said, I've realized that I'm fighting against my own interests, because if most people went vegan, meat would be much cheaper and better quality (it would have to be to sell). Oh well, not the first time. ;-)


EDIT: I've just realized something else. You should never use the 'we don't kill people like that' argument, because we absolutely do kill people when it suits our purposes, like prisoner executions and wars, and also including for food (in a way) in places and times where societal pressures hadn't made eating people 'taboo'.

Dude, 20 years is a long time to go without eating.
People were paying up front for games 20 years ago... so yes.

Anyway I've worked for several free to pay companies, and while South Park almost gets it right, they've missed an important aspect. It's all about landing whales, the vast majority of people do not, and never will pay for a game, I think the percentage of players who pay is something like 0.3% So it's all about making the whales feel important, they are essentially paying the developers for the admiration of other players. Anyway, I got out of free to play because I think it leads to bad game design (something the South Park video gets right.)

This is of course different from PC to console and mobile.With mobile being the worst, but PC MMOs, for example, have almost all gone free to play.

The bottom line is that if you're not paying for something, odds are whoever owns (and pays for it) it will have to end up selling you.

Well better late than never

>> ^quantumushroom:

We should've been eating people all along.

We should've been eating people all along.

Cultural relativism be damned. Eating people is not cool.

>> ^Gabe_b:

>> ^raverman:
I'm curious what tipping point in cultural development made this taboo?
I'm gonna guess the invention of agriculture and settled community / cities. Kinda hard to eat your neighbors children when you can't move away from them.

The adoption of herding/ animal husbandry I'd guess. Pre-European Maori and moder Papua New Guineans both ate/eat people. And NZ and PNG are both areas where there a few or no large land animals. Once you've got your chickens and goats running around it becomes safer to get your protein from those sources rather than risk war with the next tribe over.
As for eating brains, doesn't that lead to prion caused neurodegeneration? Like CJD or Kuru? Doesn't seem like it would be a sustainable act in a society over a long period of time.


Yeah, eating brains is double-plus bad. Good way to make your own tasty brainmeats melt out of your ears.

>> ^raverman:
I'm curious what tipping point in cultural development made this taboo?
I'm gonna guess the invention of agriculture and settled community / cities. Kinda hard to eat your neighbors children when you can't move away from them.


The adoption of herding/ animal husbandry I'd guess. Pre-European Maori and moder Papua New Guineans both ate/eat people. And NZ and PNG are both areas where there a few or no large land animals. Once you've got your chickens and goats running around it becomes safer to get your protein from those sources rather than risk war with the next tribe over.

As for eating brains, doesn't that lead to prion caused neurodegeneration? Like CJD or Kuru? Doesn't seem like it would be a sustainable act in a society over a long period of time.

Where's Ian Malcolm to remind us about attractions breaking down and eating people?

^We can make an argument for not eating people - they know what's going to happen, they know what it's about. Chickens don't.