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?

So, you don't think private companies should have the right to determine if an employee's publicly displayed behavior might be detrimental to the company's image and take action? The supreme court disagrees. Can you imagine the sorry state we would be in if employees couldn't be fired for inappropriate behavior?
I agree, some take it too far, but not this case. His recorded behavior would likely cause a boycott of the company if not properly addressed. Sure, some racists and racist apologists would flock to their defense, but likely not enough to keep the business going...no matter what business we're talking about, in part because they don't tend to be the people with large sums of money to spend.

We've legislated ourselves into this position. Even if it's not technically not enforceable by the company as @Drachen_Jager says, consumers have ZERO voice in the matter without legislative support. It's simply not possible to organize and boycott en masse in a way that makes a difference.

I don't see a way out of this corner without repealing legal support for the companies leveraging these "agreements" on customers, and I can't ever see that happening because government will simply never endanger economy.

GOP firmly on the side of ISIL, ISIS, Daesh whatever you want to call them...

Morons that would be our president running the EXACTLY play they want them to. Brought to you buy the same party/group that boycotts anything they disagree with almost ensuring its success and relevance.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/17/ryan-other-hill-republicans-move-on-syrian-refugee-effort-with-states-having/?intcmp=hpbt1

Yeah, I really think the police 'boycott' is going to backfire on them. It certainly makes me want to go see it more.

ok, this is much harder. First up, he's right that context absolutely matters.

But the Colbert thing was far more about stupid people not getting a joke than censorship. There was more backlash to the outrage than there was outrage in the first place.

But here's the thing, if you value freedom of expression, then you have to value people's freedom not to support forms of expression they find distasteful. People saying "I'll boycott X" is NOT censorship. Freedom of expression does not mean that private companies are required to provide you with a platform.

After months offline I just wanted some cat videos and now this...

You know, Bob, I think you are right. I may not be a US citizen but I think there should be an international law, enforced by the UN.
As a species we can not allow morally bankrupt people to define what marriage should be, especially if that definition is ethically questionable and radically diverging from what the Bible, Torah or Quran describe.
Not only are we subjected to this bizarre propaganda of how normal this sickening behaviour is, this agenda is being sold to children as well. Even if we ignore the risk factors and possible fallout from this dangerous interaction with our youth, I think we can't deny that letting somebody that unstable adopt children isn't the best of ideas.
As you point out, this minority has a strong grasp on the media and an even stronger grip around the neck of political systems around the globe. Even our economy isn't safe of their influence which everyone can see everytime they hurt american businesses with their boycotts. Like disgusting, entitled children, they throw tantrums everytime they don't get their will, no mattere what the cost.
You're right, mankind shouldn't capitulate to their demands. I say annul their existing marriages or domestic partnerships and make it illegal for those people to marry. Worldwide.
According to Wikipedia (yes, I know, Wikipedia) there are 7.2 billion humans on earth and the GOP has around 30 million members. That's only 0.4% of the world population. You're right. Why should any society capitulate for such an insignificant demographic group? Why should we allow republicans to marry or recognize their marriages as legally binding? Nobody needs them to procreate.
Having said that, as far as I'm concerned, George W. Bush is a bastard, even by westerosi standards.

I don't give a shit if a homeopath or an astrologer or a climate denier or any other nutjob you care to name disables comments on youtube. It's simply not a meaningful channel for debate. There are other, better channels.

There's no one claiming to represent everyone who uses the internet saying that online harassment is ok.

But those GG assholes claim to represent "gamers", and no, it's not even slightly about ethics in journalism. It is, in fact, the complete opposite. This is a group that called on Nintendo to withdraw support from reviewers who were critical of Bayonetta.

The fucking hypocrisy is mind blowing. Seriously, think about it. A group that is supposed to be anti-censorship and pro-consumer told one of the biggest names in the industry to boycott a publication because it criticized their product. It is to Nintendos credit that they ignored these assholes who can't understand the difference between critique and censorship.

There isn't some balanced 3rd party POV on GG. Those people are fucking troglodytes, and the sooner they're consigned to the dustbin of history the better.

And yes, of course, I'm ashamed to be part of society sometimes.

I'm not a WASP, but I am Irish and I'm deeply ashamed of some of the racist bullshit associated with my country. I was raised Catholic. Take a wild guess about how I feel about that.

The "gamers are dead" thing has been completely misinterpreted. Did you even read the source article? It's saying that the target market for games isn't "gamers", but just people. Stop marketing to a fictional teenage boy demographic.

And quite frankly, I'm considering buying a t-shirt that says SJW. How the fuck did advocating social justice become a pejorative?

I just boycott that ridiculously stupid.. strike that.. inclusive high standard channel, the owner is a Nazi from northern Germany. anything I ever put in it got taken out, so fuck it. Unless deano think's it is skillful it does not belong, so make sure you ask him first.

I always love when conservatives get their panties in a twist and create something like... ohhhh #cancelcolbert

Ban that movie... Boycott that... literally NOTHING that idiot could have done to make Colbert more popular.

Many people have been surprised - and disappointed - by his take on Snowden (he's not a fan). And before you day "it was in character": he confirmed it in the Q & A that followed.

The next day, the Boycott-RSA e-mail/spam trumpeted the very appearance that they tried to prevent as a victory that "went just the way we’d planned" (actual quote). Truly sad and delusional. It was like reading an e-mail from left-wing-Fox-News.

I agree. I think they should be able to boycott the business. and I have no problem with that as long as thats all they did. However, they shouldnt be able to call their customers and threaten them. or call the business and threaten them either. Which is what they have been doing.

You're kidding, right? Gays should "respect" that religions think they're perverts? Or that they are responsible for everything from pedophilia to earthquakes and hurricanes? I'm not even being funny, those are all things the religious right have accused gay people of. Even on this site, we frequently see opponents of gay marriage trot out the tired "if gay marriage, then incest and bestiality" argument as if they were equivalent.

So let me be absolutely unambiguous: FUCK.... THAT.....SHIT.

People absolutely have the right to say they don't want to serve gay people, or blacks, or irish or jews or whoever, and then everyone else has the right to boycott their business and call them out as bigoted assholes on the wrong side of history.

But unless they're in Kansas, they have no right to actually refuse service.

No sir. Sensible sane and rational people(sarcasm intended) would treat sponsorship of Olympic games similarly if sayyy, the Olympic committee used child labor or trashed the environment building the arena and got corporate sponsors behind them....Wouldn't we then have to listen to the same type of gimps, the same who trash their own powers of reason, come out of the wood-works to protest that horrifying scenario!?? Watch them boycott coco-cola and mc donalds then?



WHAT CREATES THE LOWER-CLASS PEOPLE anyway, duh???

All governments work the same dude, a few people force the masses to perform according to their rules or be fined or imprisoned.

Draaakonian bullshit.

Personally, I boycott coke and mc donalds because their food is non-nutritive shit that causes diabetic epidemics in adults and children-Less is more.

Besides, corporate sponsorship of anything is a waste of resources when the same could be used for advancement both physically and spiritually of the entire species.

It's 2014 sir, and pretty much ALL governments and law enforcement works on the same arcane model, be they called democracies or dictatorships....po-tay-to, fucking pa-tah-to

And Shiny's making a semi rational post without quoting the Bible? Truly it is the end times.

I'm just depressed because I found out today that my aunt supports this guy.

Part of me just cannot bring myself to care what any reality show personality says. For all I know the whole thing is a fake to drum up ratings. How many people are going to watch the show now because of this. All these cries of boycott ever do is entice more people to pay attention to the target of the boycott.

Assuming this guy actually believes what he said, it's always fun to watch the right fake outrage and play the victim as they are so experienced at doing, and completely misunderstand freedom of speech and freedom of religion