When you veer into talking about changing the Geneva Conventions I think your argument loses logic. Without getting into whether military action is actually justified in the first place, maybe it's worth admitting that there are some thing the US military simply can't do and therefore shouldn't try to?

To suggest that the US should forego international norms to achieve its goals feels like it's channeling the neo-conservative myth of the US as this omnipotent superpower that it never was, and certainly isn't now. What evidence is there that acting like the terrorists (which once you give up international norms you will eventually get to) would actually help achieve its objectives in the first place?

The Bush administration basically took that approach with torture (the "well they did it to us!" approach). When the news of secret rendition, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo broke (as it inevitably would), we know that almost certainly recruited a whole bunch of new terrorists. Meanwhile torture confessions led to a whole bunch of wild goose hunts.

Civilian resistance has been around since the dawn of armies invading foreign lands. International norms geared around state v. state warfare don't really address them, not because they didn't envisage them but because occupying and pacifying foreigners was never a good idea in the first place. Drone strikes, surgical strikes on the likes of Bin Laden should be a rare exception but once you start 'normalizing' them, and giving occupying soldiers wider latitude with civilians that's when you start getting into serious trouble.

Your offended feelings shouldn't override the identity of the feminist movement, which has no obligation to pat you on the head because you claim you were "there at the start". So yes, I hope you find a movement with a title that fits your views more closely. If you think that feminism isn't about gender equality, then I can't help you figure that out.

"still today a crackhead mother is more likely to get full custody than a fully employed stand up father..." This just isn't true; it's the kind of silly strawman that MRAs love to knock up, in fact. It's not reflected in law: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html

"Claiming to be at the top of the food chain has become a popular justification for eating animal products and an affirmation of our ability to violently dominate everything and everyone. Yet justifications for needless violence that draw on notions of power and supremacy are based on the philosophy of “Might makes right” — the principle behind the worst atrocities and crimes of human history."

"We humans are not at the top of anything. We are merely part of an interdependent web of life that forms complex yet fragile ecosystems. We choose to either participate in the protection of these natural systems, or to destroy them at our own peril. The concept of a food chain is a human construct that imposes a rigid and competitive hierarchy among species, rather than a good faith understanding of the complexity of the ecosystems to which we belong. Selectively appealing to biological determinism also ignores the fact that we are moral agents. By choosing plant foods, we can get our nutrients through primary sources of nourishment, in the most environmentally friendly and resource-efficient way possible, minimizing our harm to other animals, humans and the planet."

http://freefromharm.org/common-justifications-for-eating-animals/breaking-food-chain-myth/

> 7 MYTHS You Still Believe About AMERICAN History

FTFY

This guy is everything I hate about amateur internet videos, especially these endless "everything you know is wrong" videos. I couldn't even stand to watch it, had to scroll down and listen to about half of it before I stopped it.

Along with this giddy condescending tone that's more suited for 8th graders he comes out with empty-headed shit like "this led international scholars to declare that the Soviet Union was the real iconic saviors of Europe during the war". I think even an 8th grader could spot the bad grammar and requisite misuse of the word "iconic".

You got your myths from TV and movies and now look to the internet to clear them up? Read a shelf of books instead.

you can check out one source of research here: jonathanbalcombe.com/

as far as being educated on veganism, you are sadly mistaken. you are simply repeating the myths you have been taught since childhood. if you would not wish to experience somethign yourself, it can never be considered humane. freefromharm.org/animal-products-and-ethics/factory-farming-alternative-farming/

btw, if you were educated, you would know that the brain runs on carbs and not on fats & protein. for peer reviewed research on diet and health, i would recommend http://nutritionfacts.org/

Really, what actual peer reviewed studies of brain activity during death are you quoting whey you say that? I'm not disagreeing, I'm just pointing out that you're totally buying into the myths and lies of the vegan movement rather than any actual evidence.
I hate to tell you, but I'm probably more educated about veganism than you, as I've been exposed to it for about 40 years through my aunts family, and can see it from the outside, so being part of the 'movement' doesn't cloud my perception like it does to vegans. Also, my brain doesn't suffer from a lack of proteins and fats.

Also, to comment on your other post, not all animals are factory farmed, or executed by the methods you decry. It's incredibly annoying to try to discuss this issue with people who want to portray the entire meat industry as the worst examples possible, then tell people how to act based on that misrepresentation. There's a problem with factory farming, not all animal farming is factory farming, or factory harvesting. Please make a note of it.

of course in some ways they are different but when it comes to suffering and death, a cow is a pig is a chicken is a dog.

if you wish to become educated on this subject rather than buying into the myths and lies of our culture and society, i suggest you read this short essay:
http://freefromharm.org/animal-products-and-ethics/killing-animals-imaginary-solutions/

I was 13/14, games back then were magical. Anytime I was on a plane or in the car I was reading PC Gamer or CGM drooling over the demos (or shareware!), ads, previews and reviews. Remember those days? When information on gaming was largely through print?! I still remember those Dark Forces previews, I could have shot a load. PC gaming at that point really was fucking cutting edge.

1997 & 1998 also hold a special flame in gaming for me - 1997: Ultima Online (actually learned HTML and had a website for UO cuz I was a NERD), Fallout, GTA, Age of Empires, Dungeon Keeper, Quake II, Myth (incredible multiplayer component probably even still).

1998: Starcraft, Half-Life, Baldur's Gate, Thief, Grim Fandango, Fallout 2, Tribes, THIEF, Unreal, Commandos.... so many innovative games back then. Now we just build on them over and over and over again

I take these "everything you thought you knew is wrong" presentations for the fluff-pieces that they are, Slate.com is full of them. This guy is just as glib and vague as any myth that people may be spouting. You want to dispel some misconceptions then do the research, like they did in the Wild West.

your stance about veganism is very similar to the climate deniers in that you choose to buy into myths and lies as opposed to looking into the facts youself. the documentary i posted considers the issues of local, and so called "small" farms also. they are no more humane or less cruel than so called "factory farming" and are every but as inefficient and environmentally devastating. "factory farming" is a mere symptom and the root cause is the commodification of sentient non-human animals, just as in the past humans used to commodify other human beings of certain races. for example here is an article on the myth of "humane" animal farming: http://freefromharm.org/animal-products-and-ethics/factory-farming-alternative-farming/

the fact that climate change is driven in large part but the raising of non-human animals for food is without question a well documented fact. the human population is without a doubt a major factor but above this issue is the fact that it requires MANY times the resources to produce on calorie of flesh, dairy or eggs than it does to produce one calorie of plant based food. are you aware that in the USA, around 80% of crops grown are fed to the 10 billion farmed animals who are murdered every year for food? it has been estimated that 800 million humans could be fed on the crops which are grown for farmed animals alone. these issues are also gone into detail in the documentary.

as far as "tugging on your heart strings" goes, how is having compassion and empathy for anyone who suffers a bad thing? no one would be questioning it if the victims were human children but since they are "only" cows, pigs chickens and fishes (all of whom feel pain just like you or i do, perhaps even more so), suddenly violence against them is considered a matter of personal choice. the bottom line is that if you would not wish to expeience something yourself, it is never moral or ethical to force others to experience it, especially not in the name of a momentary taste sensation.

finally, here is a quote which i think best summarizes the situation:
“Aren’t humans amazing? They kill wildlife – birds, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice and foxes by the million in order to protect their domestic animals and their feed. Then they kill domestic animals by the billion and eat them. This in turn kills people by the million, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative – and fatal – health conditions like heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, and cancer. So then humans spend billions of dollars torturing and killing millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals. Meanwhile, few people recognize the absurdity of humans, who kill so easily and violently, and once a year send out cards praying for “Peace on Earth.”~ David Coates

Detractors gonna detract.

You know, you try and please all the people and you will just undermine your own position. I disagree with Maher that it is all about money, I think pot has an image problem too - you know the stereotypes. I don't think the way to confront that is to hide recreational pot use as if it was a thing to be ashamed of. I think some really don't think it is possible to smoke pot and, you know, have a job or be a contributing member of society. Isn't it about time to dispel that myth?

yeah, but unless you're going to go to the level of attempting to ban alcohol and cigarettes and all the other things that are demonstrably harmful when overdone, there's nothing wrong with what Bill is doing here.

The problem is, Maher is pretty much one of the more vocal spokespeople for legalized marijuana. He's only reinforcing the people who were already supportive. Obviously by the reaction of the Jeb supporter lady, she wasn't convinced or swayed.

One of the things that helped legalization gain strides was the recession. Even conservatives were considering legalizing and taxing it if only to help the budget. Now that the recession is effectively over. That steals some of the urgency away and now they can go back to being against it for ideological reasons, where pragmatism isn't needed as much.

So we need to start publicizing the financial benefits of legalization. It's my understanding that Colorado has been getting tons of new revenue because of legalization, but for some reason, that's not advertised more. Or showing things that dispel the usual myths about marijuana that people have been clinging to for decades.