Someone with the proper authority should really * Comedy this. Most people who were with me in the cinema for this movie burst into laughter when the fox started speaking.

Oddest directing choice in recent movie-making history.

I agree that selling sex should be legal, to enable people who are in the trade to seek help from the authorities. Shunning the weakest people in society has never been a productive solution.

However buying sex should remain illegal, to send the message that this line of work is potentially extremely harmful longterm and therefore not acceptable. This prohibits people from buying sex, while it only prosecutes the "stronger" part of the transaction. The buyer.

This is, as far as i have understood, how the system currently works in sweden (or norway), and how it is currently being proposed in Denmark.

In my opinion, the message should be sent that it is never be socially acceptable for anyone to masturbate in the orifices of the most vulnerable parts of society. This only drags them down further.

I have to *promote this. Mainly because I believe the sift needs this clip, but also partly because I have nothing else to use my powerpoints on

Fly little bird, fly!

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Well, shit, I was mistaken. You can't fix a dead video even if it is your own. How stupid is that?

I guess it's kind of silly. I'll just have to work my way back up to a bronze star. At least I have a goal now

*kill

Since i lost my bronze star and can't fix this, I'll have to reupload it instead. Would be a shame if it wasn't on the sift

In reply to this comment by Gibletses:
This is the cost of maintaining almost 7 billion humans. It's the cost. Pay it or perish.

When the US incorporated (1776), there were only one tenth the number of people there are now. Eliminate the factory farms and destructive ag then watch five billion people eat YOU.

For the veganoids; destructive ag (deep-till, fertilize, gm seed, irrigate, harvest, repeat) -- the process used to produce your tasty soy curd -- kills more animals than all of the factory meat production combined. Mostly through destruction of habitat. Most species extinction results from loss of habitat to farming so that you have food that makes you smug and makes other people assume you're feeble minded. (Guess what...)

In order for you to be smug behind a steamy pile of curd, thousands of animals are killed outright or die from habitat loss. The great plains now produce wheat, soy, and corn (for now...until the topsoil is gone). Do you realize how many elk, bison, wolves, foxes, voles, skunks, etc. were killed to do this? Do you know what the run-off from those crops does to streams, rivers, and the ocean? Death on a massive scale, that's what. Vegans are the worst hypocrites of them all.

I'm sorry, but your argument makes no sense. The bulk of current soy and corn crops right now are used for animal feed, in a process that only produces 1 calorie of meat for every 7 calories of vegetables used. Reducing, or removing, meat production could effectively halve the amount of farmland which needs to be sowed and maintained.

Livestock is the most ineffective way to produce food and nutrition. By reducing it you could effectively support larger populations of humans with fewer crops grown.

Just to hammer the point in, a lifestyle focused on less meat and more vegetables would require LESS farmland and agriculture, not MORE.

*Edit*
I'm sorry, I pushed the wrong button. This wasn't meant as a profile reply, but rather a response in the chicken grinder post

>> ^Skeeve:
And Mikus... bad form for even comparing this with slavery. As Gwiz said, and as has been discussed before, these are not humans, they aren't suffering like a human would, and until every last human on earth has the same rights and freedoms as everyone else a 6-hour-old chicken is an incredibly low priority.


I don't believe he was comparing the chickens suffering to that of slaves, but rather the perception of both caged chickens and slavery as necessary evils at some point in time, to justify some arbitrary life standards humans have set for themselves.

Whether the chickens have human emotions or not is not the point. The point is that meat production does not have to be done this way. And every consumer has the power to change these standards being critical consumers, if they truely wanted to. This is not a necessary evil, there are plenty of excellent alternatives to the extremely high-protein diet most people have today.

While I don't necessarily agree with the "Go vegan" statement, this is still one of the prime reasons why people should eat significantly less meat, and demand much more from the meat that they do eat.

I think people can attain a greater degree of satisfaction by limiting their meat consumption to once every 3 or 4 days, enabling them to buy high-quality organic meat for those special occasions which can truely be savoured instead of simply devoured.

And that's without even factoring in the other obvious benefits of reduced meat consumption, such as a healthier digestion, greatly reduced pressure on agriculture and the resulting drops in fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions.

It is important to remember than one doesn't necessarily have to adhere to strict vegan- or vegetarianism to make a difference.

Yet he has such soft, pillowy lips..

My main concern would be power usage of idle electronics. As far as i understood, this technology functions by constantly emitting a high-energy electromagnetic frequency which nearby electronics just hook into.

However, this seems like a one-way exchange, with the electronics being able to react and absorb the frequency, but the frequency emitter would not recieve any feedback about whether the frequency is actually being used. This essentially makes it emit a constant high-energy electromagnentic field, emitting WiTricity and consuming electricity even though no electronics are recieving the signal.

This seems rather wasteful. I'm sure they are considering solutions to this, but I was rather disappointed that he didn't adress such an obvious problem.

What great, time-conserving way to artificially increase the content of carcinogenic dioxins in my leftovers!

This is sure to decrease my life expectancy by alteast 10 to 20 years, thanks Metacafe!

(As many people have already stated in the previous comments, do NOT do this)

This series reminded me very much of the graphic novel Blankets by Craig Thompson, detailing his own journey from childhood to adulthood, and the effect his transition to atheism had on his view on life.

I highly recommend it to anyone, and hope some of you are curious enough to look it up

That being said, I never stumbled upon congruism before, but I am really fascinated by the concept now. Would upvote twice if I could

I usually live and breathe for these kinds of clips, but this has truely rattled me.

In a couple of decades, I'll probably trace an extreme phobia against flies back to this point in time. Guess I should bookmark this post.

And thanks for the links, deathcow. Interresting read

I might not remember this correctly, but aren't many of these examples exactly the reason falsificationism was introduced within the scientific community, requiring all theories to be testable and consequently discarded if the results did not correspond to the theory?

Quire ironic, given that creationism is largely considered a non-science since it cannot be tested, and therefore is not falsifiable.

However, it has been quite some years since i last took a class in scientific theory, so please correct me if I'm wrong