Not false in my eyes. Explain.
If the atrocities aren't the exact atrocities you accuse others of, just really close, they are absolute hyperbole or false equivalency? Now who's dishonest.
The point is that other religions oppress and terrorize the same targets to the same ends, but because they do it slightly differently you think that's dishonest to say? Please.
Ok, I'll try again being excessively careful.....no, everyday Christians aren't crusifying civil rights workers that we know of, but have definitely murdered them and still treat them inhumanely and with violence...they don't stone gays, but have murdered them and still discriminate against them and attack them physically.... they still subjugate women in many ways, including polygamy, but also differently from how many Muslims do....now am I honest and specific enough for you to accept the point, that Islam has no monopoly on religious evil, or are you going to claim that's not exactly the same, and so ignore the point again?

That's a convenient, but likely baseless claim. Do you have any peer reviewed studies to back it up?
It's the same thing that allows it in every religion. Immoral people assume leadership positions and instruct faithful to act atrociously. Christianity was just as inhumane, the phrase isn't "nobody expects the Muslim inquisition". It's misguided to get myopic about history in order to demonize one religion, they all fall into this pitfall, it's the nature of blind faith that it's easily abused.
A good question might be what is it about religion that it makes normal people act as if they have mental issues, and I think I just answered that.
Looking at the issue honestly, not biased against "them", is essential. It allows you to ask "did my culture find a way to stop this behavior, and if so, how." Since no culture seems 100% free from it, pointing fingers isn't helpful. Since it's true that they aren't the only ones to "be bad", how is it dishonest? What fact does it ignore?
The left is not the factually challenged side of the two. The left believes science, the right doesn't. Issue settled.

yeah..i held the misconception for years until i actually was shown the full story...

and it was a fucking horror show.just the pics alone of that poor womans groin and the burn damage../cringes
if you did not have a compassionate reaction or an empathetic response.

you are a sociopath.

not to mention mcdonalds response.which was so drenched in inhuman corporate speak,that it just left me cold,and dead inside...or maybe that was just the mcdonalds representative which basically admitted that the company was playing the ratios.they KNEW how hot the coffee was,because they set the standard.

they just viewed the small percentage of customers that DID burn themselves as acceptable losses,and they used a tried and true tactic of ignoring the complaints,which usually led to people giving up.

so the jurors damage was less about the actual burns,but more about mcdonalds knowing how hot the coffee was,because they set the temperature,and the negligence on how they responded.

so while mcdonalds did settle without actual admission of guilt,they lowered the temperature by 20 degrees.

@nanrod you should check out the video here on the sift regarding this lawsuit.i am sure you will change your attitude.

hold on..lemme go find it for ya.

The thruth of this world is that most ideals are bullshit. Let's look at the idea that human life is sacred, the sanctity of human life. God disapproves of murder.
The death penality is older than scripture. It existed before we had written words. It is still a thing.
How can that be if we are so developed, so evolved, so civilized?
Human life isn't sacred. We shit on that on a daily basis. Murder is committed every day. For petty reasons. For political reasons. For stupid reasons.
Your holy book, the Bible, tells me to kill people for adultery.
How can you defend this?
That's why I'm a cynic, that's why I'm a dissapointed idealist. I'd like to believe but I can't. Belief makes me inhuman, makes me cruel, makes me kill adulterers. It commands me to be a murderer.
For what?
For betrayal? For sex? For deceit? For breaking promises?
I'd rather be a cynic. I choose humanism over homicide.
Your book is evil. Your faith leads to evil.
I chose compassion. I chose cynicism.

1: the US prides itself on its freedoms and rights. to then do what they do is somewhat hypocritical. Everyone hates a hypocrite. Even though your counter arguments are validly disgusting and inhumane, the people doing those things aren't doing them hypocritically.

2: If you strive for perfection, most people will probably fall to an above average level. If you strive for average, most people will fall to a failing level.

Call it what you will. To me, massive illegal immigration with the goal of territorial control is invasion...no matter why they invaded. Invaders always have a reason.

The Jewish population didn't want to be mixed, nor did the Arabs by then from my readings, so there was no chance of peaceful coexistence.

Wait...what?! So...after the Nazis were gone it was too late to go home?!? How do you figure? Many if not most of them were still in Europe then.
They didn't need a promise, they needed to return to their properties, then demand reparations. They weren't promised anything by Palestine either....right?

They should have said that when the Nazis showed up, not after they were defeated...and should have fought the Nazis, not the mostly blameless (for the atrocities) Palestinians.

Again, civil wars are between native populations, not immigrants. Immigrants fighting natives is called invasion. Period.

HA!!!!! So, when neighbors and allies try to secure their borders that are being crossed by invaders, you call THEM invaders, but not the immigrant army. WTF, man?

EDIT: Should I think you call Turkey an invader of Daesh, and you a supporter of Daesh? They were in the same boat as the Jews, being ostracized and destroyed around the globe, until they came together in an area where a small portion of the natives gave them support and the majorities ignored their rise to power, they grasped territories and power, formed their separate nation, and since then have simply 'defended' themselves from the aggressive natives....right? Um....no.

No...far from the most open place, Palestine was openly hostile to them, but incapable of stopping the invasion. The U.S. was open...if they could get here. There was no separate Jewish Palestine then. I have sympathy for the European Jews until the day they tried to become a separate nation by force. Since that day, they've been the aggressive invaders doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them without the gas chambers.

Perhaps you don't know that >90% of rockets are fired at expansionist settlements in Palestine, not Israel, met with exponentially more force against civilians. (And before you balk, there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian, they are all, 100%, military....by law).

Neighbors and allies fighting invaders of their allies are absolutely not more at fault than the invaders for the continuing tragedy...not that I support their rhetoric or actions.
The single cause of the conflict is foreign invaders taking territory by force and constant expansion ever since. Their continuing inhumanity towards the natives is another topic, morality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)
I admit I was wrong about the 8% figure, I got the columns crossed, recalculating, it was about 11% in 22, 17% in 31, and 32% in 47. That still sounds like a pretty huge influx by my standards, almost tripling the per capita population in 25 years (and more than tripling the actual population) compared to others in the region, mostly by imigration.

You said they stood along side the Nazis " upon the UN mandating a two state solution to the whole mess" (I think you've edited what you originally stated, that they then stood along side the Nazis, and clarified what you meant, that the leaders that turned down the 47 proposal had stood with the Nazis in the past, which I don't disagree with...too bad I erased the quotation for space). The U.N. mandated a two state solution in 74...in 47, they 'mandated' a 3 state solution that took massive territories from the Palestinians and handed it to Jewish immigrants, it turns out the Palestinians should have accepted because they've lost far more since then, but it sounded terrible at the time.

What points? Are these universal points? Can I redeem them for trips to the store by the universe...it owes me some milk.

In 48, when the illegal immigrants became land thieving invaders, the U.N.partition plan was to split the territory 3 ways, and for the U.N. to control Jerusalem. It would be like the U.N. agreeing today with illegal Mexicans in Texas and California that the southern 1/2 of all border states was now a new country because they are now a majority in many areas, with the U.N. taking control of the LA basin....we might say "no thanks" like the Palestinians did...at least I hope so.

The 37 British plan for Partition came before 47.
WIKI-The first proposal for the creation of Jewish and Arab states in the British Mandate of Palestine was made in the Peel Commission report of 1937, with the Mandate continuing to cover only a small area containing Jerusalem. The recommended partition proposal was rejected by the Arab community of Palestine,[8][9] and was accepted by most of the Jewish leadership.

You said they stood with the Nazis when the two state solution was proposed...which was actually 74, but I'll give you leeway and say you meant 47, which is still ridiculous, the Nazis were long gone in 47.

They didn't seize it as payback for the holocaust, but many allies went along, seemingly out of guilt for not stopping it sooner (a valid complaint about the US, but no reason to help take Palestinian territory and hand it away).

Yes, there was Jewish hatred in Europe before the Nazis, that's one reason why they were able to grab so much power, they had a ready made scape goat. Your point?

No, not every Jew in Palestine was a Zionist, but enough of the 11% were that they tripled their presence in 25 years....and far more importantly, today it's near 100%, and they are violent, expansionist, ruthlessly inhuman, and zealous.

I refuse to call it a civil war when one side was made nearly completely of immigrants....that's called an invasion.

I do agree, the inability to assimilate is not 100% the immigrants fault, but it is 100% their responsibility. Refugees, that are not expected to stay, so not expected to assimilate, are kept in camps. These people did not go to camps, so they were, at best, illegal immigrants, and many were coming with the goal of stealing inhabited territory for their own, which makes them invaders. The VAST majority of them came after the war ended, so could not be war refugees. During the war, Jews had an incredibly hard time traveling in Europe.

The few actual refugees there that the axis created were absorbable by the Palestinians. It's their multitudinous militant expansionist friends that continue to immigrate there to this day that are the problem, IMO. I'll continue to call them violent invaders, you've said nothing to convince me otherwise.

For some reason i have an insatiable love for people losing their shit as a group. Just like in this video, when people are screaming, jumping about and going apeshit. I especially love it when one of them pretends to faint or fall over and everyone clamours round to prop them up.

I think i've seen it here recently in some sort of basketball best celebrations compilation possibly. A good place to see it is in the crowds of fighting game competitions (like Super Smash Bros), when someone pulls off a feat of inhuman prediction, nerve and timing. Sometimes they're almost competing to pull the funniest face/stunt and it has me crying with laughter.

I must sound really strange.

@ahimsa

seriously?
quoting to rebutt an obvious sarcastic comment?
is it that hard to even attempt to be even a tad original?
do you REALLY think i am promoting actual violence?
really?
and you respond with a level of pretentious twattery that you should be ashamed of.

are you even remotely aware you literally made my point on how some vegans lack the basic self-awareness to realize they are being massive hypocrites and tools?

you trot out those tired,and boring,self-effacing morality/ethics tropes as if they were written on mount sinai,and then have the audacity to not even own your own egocentric bullshit.

jesus..vegans are such intolerable pussies.

because YOUR vegan philosophy is egocentricism on narcissistic steroids,and you lack the basic self-awareness to even have the skills to acknowledge that you are literally smelling your own farts,and calling it wisdom.

there is another vegan on this site that i really wish would put his two cents in,because he at least is aware of the hypocrisy and is an absolute delight to engage with.

but YOU...
self-awareness may be too tall an order it seems.
as you rant and rail against the inhumanity and suffering of the agri-animal on a fucking machine that 10 yr olds assembled to put together in a country where they dont even have the most basic of necessities met.

sitting at a desk dressed in clothes that ANOTHER 8 yr old sewed together,working 18 hr days at 23 cents an hr and is beaten if she slacks,is late..or complains.

the list of human oppression,slave labor and human trafficking that YOU benefit from is legion,and your lack of your own hubris,privilege and hypocrisy is,quite frankly,offensive.

so you can sit there in your own little smug fart cloud and self-righteously condemn the rest of us for choosing to enjoy bacon and convince yourself of your own superior morality and purity of ethics,but the reality is this:

you don't give two fucks.
you are an over-privileged,over indulged little shit and is no better nor worse than the rest of who travel through this life..making our own choices and being responsible for them.

the ONLY thing you truly care about is your little habitat and how others behavior affects your tiny,precious little world.so you go ahead an be a vegan for "moral" and "ethical" reasons,because it gives you the "feel goods".

and i say this with all humanity and honesty:
if you are vegan for moral and ethical reasons,then good for you mate.you made a conscious choice and have stuck to it.bravo my friend.

but don't try to push your own little inane philosophy on the rest of us.we may be assholes for eating meat,but at least we are not hypocritical,contradictory assholes.

now if you want to discuss the benefits of a vegan diet.
great...i am down.
if you wish to share why being a vegan for YOU is a philosophy that works for YOU and is a choice YOU made...then great.i love understanding why people chose to do what they do.

but if you keep attempting to make this purely a morality and ethical dilemma,while ignoring YOUR own philosophical and moral inconsistencies.

well..then we have nothing more to speak about.
enjoy the smell of your own farts.

/cockpunched

It almost sounds like he is suggesting to keep an open mind and learn about other cultures, religions & mythology in order to understand those perspectives; and overall to be humble to the mystery: that we do not know.

In my opinion some of his opinions were a little contradictory - he doesn't believe in any sort of god or gods, but it seems that a wiser statement would be that he doesn't know, which would correspond with the "I don't believe in atheists" theme.

Furthermore, I honestly don't think that those who (in Hedges' words), "do not explore the religious impulse" are inhuman. Even if someone never explores it in their lifetime. In my opinion - the late bloomers who have disconnected themselves from all inclination of organized religion or spirituality, to find it on their own later in life might have a few more advantages than those that did not disconnect themselves from it at some point.

My personal preference is that I do believe in god because I want to believe in god. Whether it's a metaphor, completely abstract energy, a point in spacetime, a massive intelligent energy field that existed long before the big-bang, a life-force found only on Earth or the Milky Way or a fucking super mega alien technological consciousness program experiment or even a microscopic white dude flying on a microscopic magic carpet or all of the above and none of the above. I just believe even though my version of whatever creation/god is, is completely unidentifiable, it's everything and it's nothing.

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.

It's not inhumane ('humane' being another oxymoron, because it's meaning, and acting like a normal human, are opposites) because 1)they have a life at all, which they would not if not given the opportunity by my family 2) they have a place to live that life, which they would not if not given the use of the land and 3) nature also creates barriers to movement, so it's not unnatural for an animal to live it's entire lifespan in one place...perhaps for cattle, but not the rest. Farm animals are not humans, and those that have an aversion to being stationary have no place on a farm. You could say that not being nomadic is 'inhumane', as our natural state is not sedentary, but few would argue it's 'cruel'.
'Animals' are not humans, so are not slaves. That idea makes you sound ridiculous. See the South Park episode for a good example.
Stopping suffering is not within our scope.
There are many reasons why stopping meat eating is not reasonable, but the one you should be the most interested in is, if humans didn't eat cattle, they might be extinct. The same goes for many animals we eat, and if we didn't eat things like pork, the ecological disaster feral pigs create would be almost as bad as what humans do.
It would be easier and cheaper to change the conditions in the slums of India and elsewhere than it would be to eradicate the meat production (edit:and consumption) of the entire planet. What do the people do now that no longer have jobs? What do you do with all the animals that no longer have a 'use' and don't own property to move onto? How do you control their numbers so they don't destroy what's left of the planet?
Technically, yes, all humans are animals. Mentally handicapped humans are not TREATED 'like animals', by which you MEAN treated poorly and without thought for their comfort and well being, which in fact is NOT how most animals are treated in our first world society, no matter how much you think so. Factory farms are a different matter.
When dolphins take control, they can treat mentally handicapped dolphins better than average humans. It's not arbitrary to treat your own species as the most important, it's an evolutionary trait almost all species likely possess.
No, I can't eat an entire vegan diet. I've tried many vegan foods, and found them ALL inedible, some made me sick.

You made blanket statements about how ALL animals are treated, and how ALL meat is produced and then defended that blanket statement. I'm glad you now admit your mistake, I hope you can see it through and stop blanket blaming ALL meat eaters.

What other people eat is farther outside your influence than how they treat their children.

Without the calorie dense food that is 'meat', we would still be nomadic gatherers, if we could exist at all. Eating meat is one of the things that gave us the energy to evolve those 'higher brains' that can choose our actions and determine what's 'rational'.
You will never see a vegan Olympic athlete. (Edit: well, maybe in Olympic curling...)

Daesh has brought about change...a change that THEY see as positive. That's not a good argument.

Yes, you are a monster for supporting such unabashed, unproductive carnivores ;-)...and I would hazard a guess that you don't feed them only free range, gmo free turkey carcasses, so you sound worse than me, the unashamed meat eater that pays the extra money for proper animal treatment....not just for them but because it's healthier meat too.

I did my part for the animals and the planet by not having children. ;-) Too bad I'm such a minority that it won't make a whit of difference.

@newtboy: Just to be clear, I really appreciate your comments. It's nice to talk to an omnivore who doesn't just respond with "I'LL EAT TWICE AS MUCH MEAT AS YOU DO TO MAKE UP FOR YOUR VEGANISM!" I'm trying to be objective, and I appreciate your attempt as well.

That being said...

I respect the genuine care you give to your animals. I didn't know you or your family (or both) owned such a farm. It does sound like you do, truly, meet their needs as animals. However, (and I hate to bring out the really controversial stuff), I'm sure plenty of slave-owners treated their slaves with genuine humanity. But that doesn't excuse the categorical enslavement of other beings. Despite all care given to those animals, they are still not able to live their natural lives as animals on earth. I don't see why our subjugation, no matter how "humane", can be considered anything less than "inhumane".

Now, the comparison to "most children in the world" is a moot one. Yes, of course everywhere there are going to be worse things happening. But the point is that we are rational, (hopefully) decent, higher-order-understanding-of-the-universe beings. Humans seem to like to cherry-pick when their huge brain is an excuse for greatness, or ignored and "we're just animals after all". So, just because there is suffering outside the scope of our influence, we do all have the ability to stop eating meat. Pretty easily, in fact, since there are tons and tons and tons of other means to get all the nutrition we need (not to mention way, way healthier means).

The point is that we are completely and totally (especially as upper-middle class 1st-world citizens) capable of not eating meat this very moment. You can't, however, change the living conditions in the slums of India by yourself right now.

And explain to me how mentally handicapped humans are not animals. What is the distinction? They are both objectively less intelligent. If anything, animals are more capable of surviving on their own. What makes mentally handicapped people any more special than animals? Just because they're human? That seems arbitrary. True, they should be treated differently because they are different animals, but I mean why should one be treated to our moral consideration and one should not? What makes humans so damn special?

And that "sustenance" argument is really, really misguided. As said above, you can eat an entire vegan diet and be probably even more healthy than an omnivore. And animals are not minimally suffering. Yes, a very cherished, rare group, as your animals are, are "minimally suffering", but many, many, many, many more are being horribly abused for that sustenance that can be gained elsewhere (with suffering of its own, truly. I always hear the "well, there are people given slave wages to pick vegetables in California". But, you'll be eating those vegetables and fruits anyway. That's an entirely other battle that needs to be waged in other ways, not through lack of consumption).

My assumption was not that 100% of farmers treat their animals inhumanely. My assumption was that billions of animals are being treated inhumanely. And the way parents treat their children is a red herring. That's not my argument at all. And again, it's outside the realm of my influence.

And to counter your last argument... my same argument above follows for the "food chain/web" argument. Once and for all:

We are rational, amazing, smart, complex and powerful beings on this planet. We have it within our power (each of us) to not eat meat. This is "against nature". But so is basically OUR ENTIRE CIVILIZATION. What makes us truly different from animals is that exact ability. To step back and choose our actions. Are you saying humans not capable of choosing their actions -- those with so much in the 1st world countries? That we're all forced to, by nature, to eat meat? That is the cognitive dissonance I speak of. That we're so special because we are rational beings, but at the same time we must eat meat because we are not rational human beings.

This entire argument was not endorsed by PETA, because they're a bunch of assholes -- but despite being assholes one can't argue that they have brought about change. Change comes from all angles. Grassroots, insane radicals, scientists, humanitarians. They all try to bring change in different ways and succeed influencing different groups. PETA's brazenness is its power. Large corporations, like McDonald's, must respond to such a power. Despite being assholes. Both of them.

--

I want to end on a note of humility -- that I admit to having that same cognitive dissonance when it comes to animals. As a cat owner, I often visualize the mound of turkey carcasses that both of my lovable kittens live on top of. And they truly are carnivores in that they cannot find sustenance outside of meat. How do I rationalize all the turkey deaths (my cats only exclusively eat turkey for some goddamn reason) just so I can have my lovable pets? I can't. And it kills me. Not sure if I'll get cats after they die.

--

Thanks for reading. That was a lot.

Amazing rider and quite the trippy visuals on top!
Behind the scenes at the end were great too because otherwise it just looked inhuman...

Where is the option for the cotton planter to change careers to something they find interesting and challenging?

Does it matter? If you have a job that you studied for in college and suddenly notice it doesnt fit you, you have to work a lot to correct that for no pay, you actually have to pay for it. Also if youre 40+ and want to start a new career human resource managers will rather take someone who didnt have the issues like you and has the years experience in actual work at the same job. So you will always be at a huge disadvantage if you decide to change professions.
All these "super successful" people you see on TV that proudly talk about how they did all that so well, "just because they worked soooooo hard" (everyone either does that, or claims it), are exceptions to the rule!



Where are the benefits of infrastructure?

Uhm, those infrastructures are mostly used to get to your job or do your job anyway. What good are they if you work where you live, like those slaves?



How about healthcare?

AFAIK slaves got good healthcare, since they were property and the owner would lose money if they "broke" and couldnt be fixed.
Also I wouldnt call American healthcare good. People have to pay for it. And often have to take huge debts on themselves and their family to survive or be still able to work.



How about individual's rights?

Individual's rights? Yeah, maybe against other "slaves", but not against the state or rich people. They will always have a huge advantage compared to you. And actually they do what they want all over the world. Just look at those cesspools Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Millions killed for what? Are you safer now than before 9/11? No. The whole world is actually MUCH MUCH unsafer now. All thanks to your masters that care so much about the "individual's rights".
They even have the audacity to threaten NATO countries with invasion if they ever dared to bring one of them before an international tribunal.



How about protection from hostility?

Hostility from whom? Terrorists? Are you kidding me? Terrorists who are only created due to inhumane politics aswell? Criminals? Do you know that crime is actually not something we are born with, but we actually learn to do, because of our surroundings? If a lot of people feel treated unfair and cant do anything about it, crime rate will skyrocket. It has been that way for thousands of years. Look at other countries that treat their people much more humane and actually even pay then enough to live a good life even if they dont work, or have never worked! They shudder when seeing American crime rates. You can compare yourself more to Brazil than to Europe.



How about ever improving quality of life?

Most people are extremely stressed in their life, due to their job, not having enough time because of their job, being frustrated because other people have more then them, while working less (or not at all), having health issues due to their work and they know they cant change the job because they wont get another one, they simply hate their job, but also know they cant get a better one, etc, etc, etc.
There was a study a few years ago where they found out that people 500-1000 years ago were actually very happy. They didnt have to work nearly as much as we do nowadays! It wasnt rare that they only worked 6 months a year, and even if they worked they had MUCH longer breaks every day and didnt work as long. And they lived a good life for those times. Of course nowhere near as good as the monarchs, but it wasnt nearly as bad as its commonly claimed.

One thing has changed though: If youre smart and/or lucky (as in having a rich family) you can open your own company, do what you love. But even that gets harder and harder because the competition gets higher in numbers and in quality.