I'm impressed Unlike @newtboy, I don't automatically assume you're lying and feel compelled to do a bit more reading myself before discussing it further.

It's been a long time since I studied it at Uni, and even then we never studied the entire Koran (a one semester course would not have been sufficient for that).

There is, of course, some disagreement about what the hadiths say. The one that immediately springs to mind is "Seek knowledge even as far as China", and I'll quote the former prime minister of Malaysia here:{quote}A hadith says: “Seek knowledge even as far as China.” It was pointed out by detractors that this was just a saying of the Prophet and it was not a command from God. When they disagreed with a particular hadith, they were quick to discredit it and refused to acknowledge it as a source of Islamic teaching. But if they subscribed to it, then they would not cease to highlight it repeatedly, even if it’s authenticity is doubted. Surely seeking knowledge in China does not mean Islamic knowledge. During the Prophet’s period, China was also known to have deep knowledge in such fields as medicine, literature and paper, explosives and many others.{quote}

Certainly the early muslims were very keen on acquiring knowledge, and did indeed travel as far as China to do so (and brought the art of paper making back with them).

To highlight my point about over focused names of 'movements' losing them support, here's a report on a "black girls matter" protest...

Its an American television show intended almost entirely for American consumption. You yourself acknowledged you don't know very much about him. It is clearly not intended to introduce him as a candidate to someone who was previously unaware of him, it is after all a comedy sketch.

Trump has a notorious and long history of having an extremely thin skin and reversing his position multiple times. He actively and very publicly campaigned on some of the issues in that video, and now onto the general, realizes they make him (hopefully) un-electable.

The clip is meant to highlight the comical policy shifts and pandering, not introduce him to people who arn't familiar with him.

Absolutely not a straw man when the statement it contradicts was "The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that's wrong with the world.”
At what point do you decide (for yourself, the only one you get to decide for) 'sentience' exists? Shrimp? Crabs? If so, then logically also mosquitos, gnats, and ticks.
Also, why have YOU decided so capriciously that 'sentience' is the measure of a life's worth? What, if anything, do you base that decision on? Perhaps a sense of biological superiority?

BUT you insist others adopt YOUR definitions of non violence, oppression, exploitation, others, property.

Again, you insist that "every human believes" something you believe. That's absolutely not true of ANYTHING, and totally wrong about this topic...clearly. It clearly doesn't 'when it concerns humans' or we wouldn't be murdering and torturing each other as we are.

We clearly disagree that animal consumption is the MAIN issue globally....just as we clearly disagree that it's even a possibility for humanity to switch to a purely vegetarian diet...pasture land is not the same as farmable land.

There are certainly ecological issues with meat production on the scale and in the manner we do it today...there was no such issue when the population being fed was 1/10 what it is today....no one burned massive portions of the rainforests to raise cattle 150 years ago, they didn't need to.

When I see a video like this that highlights people being kind to animalS (the dog AND the bird) it's disturbing that people are so disconnected with normalcy that they see a connection with murder and torture....or that they see murder and torture where it doesn't exist, and disturbing that they feel the need to shit on the happy video comments with a 'but you're all murdering bastards...feel bad and capitulate'.

Yeah, again, I don't click random links, and I don't get science from the internet, no need to read any vegan propaganda. Thanks

Ask 10 people on the street if they think it's OK to humanely raise animals for consumption, 9.95 of them will say "yes".
Now you are equating intentional harm with unintentional harm, equating intentional frivolous casual injuring and killing for pleasure with occasional unintentional injuring and killing for an essential purpose.

not really-life = sentient life is the only assertion which i clarified and this assumption was stated from the beginning so was implied. the suggestion that this changes everything is a classic straw man fallacy.

the imperatives which i am espousing on are merely non-violence and a rejection of oppression, exploitation and using others as property and economic commodities which almost every human believes when it concerns humans and perhaps a few other species. it is only the others whom should be considered under the umbrella of moral concern which is the key point of the issue for most people.

as far as the population, the main reason WHY the human population IS such an issue is due to the consumption of animal products. along with the obvious moral and ethical issues of murdering other sentient beings, the production of animal based foods requires many times the resources to produce an equivalent calorie compared to plant based food which drives things like climate change, resource depletion, water scarcity, biodiversity, species extinction and other aspects of environmental devastation.

when a video such as this one comes up which highlights people being kind to an animal, it is disturbing that people are so disconnected that they do not make the connection between the animals in the video whom they feel good about being rescued and the countless others which are being tortured and murdered for their dinner plate. this is exactly what the short article i posed above articulates so well.

“Ask ten people on the street if they think it’s wrong to injure or kill animals for one’s amusement or pleasure, and nine or ten will say yes, of course. Chances are all ten of those people freely consume animal products, simply because they like to and they’re used to doing it." - Karen Manfrede

There was an interview on ABC that I was watching at work, and the lady being interviewed made more or less the same points as this article from the Grauniad, Dilma Rousseff: Brazilian congress votes to impeach president http://gu.com/p/4tdg9/stw

She said that many of the minor parties spent a lot of time explaining their votes, and that many of them had nothing to do with either corruption or Rousseff... so many Brazilians think it's all politicised and partisan and little to do with any real wrongdoing.

It'll possibly show up here in a day or so - http://www.abc.net.au/transcripts/ (I think it was probably ABC News, Series 2016 | Episode 77). I kinda wish I'd paid more attention to the who/what/when/where/why/how.

The end of this BBC News report highlights something that Greenwald said, which is that the supporters of impeachment are rich and white, and those who oppose it are poor and likely to be mixed race (skip to 1:37):



p.s. This isn't the transcript I was talking about, but yesterday is missing from the list (?!?) It does have some details I haven't seen much elsewhere: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2016/s4445246.htm

I'd watch so much more of this show if I didn't have to worry about that guys stupid hair highlight burning an after-image onto one of my monitors.

Dragon capture was successful too this morning.
some highlights (Nasa): https://youtu.be/PbXKCUH6h28

Highlights of Garry Shandling & Conan

That's a hard sell. It's my guess that the neon is the only way the pilots can keep track of where they are, and where they're going. It even got annoying to me a bit (but also looked like a video game, so wasn't TOO bad) but I can see why they did it. I'm not sure if it would work without the high intensity visual cues.
I was glad they didn't light up everything. They could have put LEDs on every hand rail and post to highlight them, but they didn't.
I'm sure they'll figure out a balance eventually. Don't give up on them yet, it's the first race after all.

There was a lot of posturing from Star Wars fans (from stardestroyer.net, I think) for a long time, with exaggerations about the power of imperial starships. However, some fans have done an extensive (and pretty ridiculous) amount of work to make a lengthy comparison, that, while only as accurate as can be interpreted from the provided material, does come out in strong favor towards Star Trek technology:
http://www.st-v-sw.net/
So yes, NdGT is correct, and really, you don't need to do the extensive research the fans did to confirm that. Logistics in a post-scarcity civilization alone gives a significant advantage.
But this is to be expected. When you have a TV show as focused on science and technology as Star Trek, it will certainly excel.
Meanwhile, Star Wars isn't supposed to be about high end technology. For them the technology is only there to highlight the story. The charm of the Millenium Falcon is not that it's a god-like ship that can mop the floor with everyone else, but that it's some guy's souped up junker that's full of surprises. The Death Star isn't the ultimate weapon, but a weapon of fear. (A weapon that destroys excessive amounts of available resources is impractical for anything else, and that especially includes Starkiller Base.)
And if there really needs to be some sort of sci-fi-peen competition, you can go the complete nonsense route with Doctor Who, where one Dalek could probably conquer both the Trek and Wars universes with minimal effort.
Or the overkill route with the Culture, where wiping the rest out would be an idle task, pursued for entertainment.
Star Wars fans just need to chill and embrace their universe of junkers and quaint technology. Star Trek fans have already embraced the fact that their universe isn't about action and explosions. (No, we don't include the Abramsverse.)

There are BLM activists who make inflammatory comments about white people (oh no whatever shall we do) and there are feminists who make inflammatory comments about men (oh no whatever shall we do). I posit, for your reasoned consideration:

Agree with @spawnflagger -- that casual interview was great! Although maybe the #1 highlight for me was the "hardest hitting" question about what sport politics is most similar to. I wonder what Obama would identify as one of the times when he hit the hole and saw things open up downfield...

You load this page, the video title helpfully tells you that you're going to watch the English version of "No Respite", an ISIS recruitment video. You watch the ISIS recruitment video, and the description helpfully tells you when it was released and what alternative versions exist.

I understand the sentiment and i agree with it, but i don't think this is any examination or analysis. That surely would be a video or at least a description that highlighted what exactly about it was deceit, clever marketing, manipulative wording, etc. Without an analysis as part of the video i don't think any good that comes from the few who discuss it outweighs the bad that comes from rebroadcasting the message.

I personally think that whoever made it would want it to be spread and shared in as many places as possible so that it was as easy as possible to access. I don't think Liveleak should host it either.

Just what i think, and i have a lot of respect for you regardless.

bob, Trump has a point about "muslims" in the same way that Hitler had a point about "Jews".

I was watching that game and all I could say was "wha...???????" I think fans on both sides are like "wtf?"

But the highlight has to be that blocked extra point kick at the end there. Wow....