Trigger warnings are a trigger for the right. And I'm not even kidding.

More proof that intelligent people are the ones NOT having kids... So the dumb genes really ARE bringing doom to the planet.

Agreed, it was an impressive flight. I think I've seen similar in Formula1 and similar racing, but not if you multiply for scale.
I think because these were (allegedly) kids, the carts and the drivers were extremely lightweight with large flat bottoms that act like a wing (the cars' bottoms, not the kids') unlike most open wheel classes (like my off road racing buggy), but the speeds were still pretty high. (EDIT: Also, no suspension to soak up the sudden upward thrust) Everything came together just right to launch her. Damn fine recovery on her part....even if she couldn't continue for long.

I can't agree with that. It might somewhat address the environmental factor but it doesn't satisfy the ethical reasons (or the health reasons if you care for yourself). There is also no reason why you can't do both. Being vegan and not having kids is not mutually exclusive, and it would address the immediate problem, until the long term (population) problem is resolved.

Meat is never healthy in any amount, just like cigarettes aren't, I came to that conclusion after reading the above mentioned books. Regular doctors get their nutritional advice from organisations formed by companies that sell meat and coincidentally the drugs that treat the chronic illnesses the meat causes. It's a great business model that's for sure. Make money from the cause, make money from the treatment.

Something that does not exist will never be aware of it's lack of existence. Therefore it cannot be sad that it is not existing, since you need to exist to experience the concept of loss.

Like I said. No GOOD reasons to eat animals
Hedonism doesn't usually count as a good reason.

I'll eat a bloody raw steak on youtube if you can think of a good reason

Cute video of a toddler snowboarding is not for kids?

for kids, not about kids..

Not at all from my read.
To me, it's like trademarking the word "news!", forcibly removing any videos labeled "news!", and insisting anyone that posts one pay them 1/2 the revenue they might make...and probably taking it too far and going after those making 'news' claiming they're also infringing and forcing them to pay or defend themselves in court.
It's not at all as specific as you claim.
I see the difference in your analogy, but I totally disagree with your characterization. It's far more like trademarking 'news!' than trademarking 'news filmed and broadcast from a window of a bathysphere sitting in your swimming pool'. If it were that specific, there would be no outrage.
If they didn't come up with it, it's not their idea...and 'humans react to' videos is NOT distinctive enough by far, IMO, and in the opinion of MOST people. If they actually limited it to videos with the exact format of people watching unseen videos at an angle, and the exact same title of "Kids React!" they're still over reaching to control something they did not invent and should not own. Kids reacting was a genre of video/photograph LONG before they started making them, and if the reaction is exciting, using an exclamation point is normal English, as is capitalization of all words in a title.

They have no right to 'protect' something they didn't invent by taking other people's money, first that's not protection, it's simple extortion, second, it's theft, since it's not even their idea in the first place.
They don't have to be the first, possibly, but they certainly shouldn't be able to trademark a common phrase that existed before their company, or a format that existed long before their company, which is what they did.
If they want to 'protect their brand', they need to re-name it something that's not already a common phrase, otherwise they're trying to co-opt a commonly used phrase (that they didn't come up with in the first place) and extort money from those who commonly use it under threat of lawsuit. They also need to steer FAR away from attempting to enforce it against ANY video not in their EXACT format, including font, capitalization, punctuation, stated video format, content, etc. It a video doesn't meet EVERY standard there, they should leave it alone. I'm fairly certain that's NOT their intent, as it would make it impossible for them to extort money and make this move useless.


EDIT: Can we at least agree that, if a company is going to do something like this that COULD be a huge over reach and could easily be abused to both extort money and remove any competition, and their spokes people do such a piss poor job of explaining what they're doing that it sounds like they're using the law to steal property and money from actual content creators and erase those they can't control, while creating absolutely nothing themselves, and offering nothing for the money they forcibly take, that that company deserves ALL the ridicule and losses that follow, and their best move left would be to drop the entire thing rather than continuing and making numerous failed attempts to explain themselves?

My wife and I chose to not have kids, which doesn't matter to my family because they are dead, but her family thinks we are being selfish to not give them more grandkids (her sister had one).

I think we've just about reached the "agree to disagree" point. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that the other person keeps any of the truth the other said in their mind and mull it over. Thanks for the chat.

I agree that inhumane is a silly word. "Inhumane" acts are often acts only perpetrated by humans.

I dislike the argument about the fact that farm animals would go extinct if we didn't keep systematically breeding and killing them. So what? Then let them go extinct. I personally think it's morally accetable to let an animal go extinct naturally -- especially if the alternative is to perpetually keep them un-extinct just to, essentially, torture them for our pleasure. I do, however, agree with your later comment that it would be a clusterfuck to figure out what to do with the ones that do currently exist. Easiest solution: keep eating them but don't breed them. Unfortunate human consequence: meat would become expensive. Also, during the time that we eat off the rest of them, those workers could train for another (hopefully) less miserable job. I can't believe many, regardless of how they rationalize it, can enjoy killing something before its time.

I'm fully aware of how the slave comparison is a bit off the edge (I even said so), but it's a hyperbole for the purpose of making a point: it is immoral to treat any animal to pain and suffering -- regardless of how you treat any other one of them. One mercy killing does not absolve you of another horrific one.

I am not saying that animals are not always treated poorly and without thought for their comfort. I am just saying that they are not allowed into the safe moral haven that handicapped humans are let into. If we mercy killed even one handicapped person, there would be an uproar that deafened the world. A mercy killing. Imagine if they did any of the (even "humane") things they do to animals to a handicapped person. It would be morally disallowed to an extreme degree. I don't know why animals don't get the same treatment.

Again, when you bring anything up about "evolution", I roll my eyes. We're humans with supposed free will. We're supposed to be above that, right?

If every vegan food you ate was inedible and made you sick than either your cook does not know how to cook, it was gluten-free, or there was something horribly wrong with the food. Fresh fruit? Beans? Peanut butter? Nuts? Berries? Greens? Carrots? B12 supplements? They made you sick? Something you ate was horribly wrong.

Your Olympic athlete statement is just factually incorrect. I would think you'd google that before stating something as fact.

And agaiun. "Evolution". Yeah, that happened already. Let's move on.

Stop making me feel bad about my cats! I already confessed guilt! :-P I actually do spend a ridiculous amount of money so that the food is better than just crap. I'm lucky enough to be wealthy enough to do it and I am extremely thankful for that. And! The amount of wealth that cat videos have garnered for advertisers is hardly unproductive.

And my partner and I are also on board about not having kids. She and I both think they're the worst thing you could ever do to the planet, animals, or people. Utopia got it right.

@ant, dude...Once again, kids channel is *FOR kids*, not about kids.

The lady being seriously upset over them.....uhh...that game is NOT for kids, its for adults.

Relax lady.

Not all kids are dirty and smelly, at least not as you seem to think they are. Mine have thick 'curly' fur but doesn't hold dirt or smells, and I wash them at least twice monthly (more if they pee their pants) so they have little smell. What smell they do have, I enjoy... maybe too much. Their teeth are good and some are still coming in, so their breath doesn't stink...yet. They still have new baby smell, even though they're 2 and 4. I'm sure some people hate that smell, but I'm not one of those people. I do however strongly dislike the smell of unwashed, slobbery, oily, sweaty, stinky, poo-butted dogs, especially when wet! I mean that literally!

*nochannel

Removing:
-kids (that channel is material FOR kids, not ABOUT kids)

Adding:
*dark

*nochannel

removing:
-WTF -- just isn't
-Kids -- channel is FOR kids, not ABOUT kids

keeping:
*Comedy
*Cute
*FTW

@nock, kids channel is FOR KIDS, not about kids..