I found an update on the youtube page.

Update: A lot of people have asked about her now. I never thought it would get so much interest. This video is a chronicle of our time together, which I finished making a while ago. Subsequent to making the video, I had to travel a lot, and struggled with keeping her where I was living. A saviour stepped in and helped look after Pegs while I tried to make a plan and she moved back and forth, which was disruptive for her. After months of no solution, it was obvious that her new set up with incredible love, a bigger garden and a new best friend in Luna, another great dane was more than I could offer. I am lucky that I get to visit and take her for short periods, and maybe that's why in my heart she's still with me. It’s always difficult. If the dog is happier, do you forsake your happiness? I think yes. If a dog is negligently bred, should it be killed to prevent more negligent breeding? I think no. Who's to say. In the end we try our best and our pets teach us lessons about love, humility and non-judgment.

As the "Bozo" who runs the very site that you just attacked, I would like a chance to respond to your baseless accusations, sir.

I was plant-based lacto-vegetarian at the time of writing that post, and was vegan just 13 days after writing it, on November 27th. I am now going back and forth between vegan and vegetarian due to severe digestive health issues, but thanks for trying to say I am using that post to "justify" anything I do.

I wrote the blog post, and if you read it, I simply mention why Greger is unreliable as the "bulletproof" source that many vegans make him out to be, including his bias and his inaccuracies. I never once attacked him as a person, which you would know if you actually read the post, I simply mention that inaccurate claims that he doesn't benefit from his work, because facts state that the charity he gives to is his own charity, which does nothing other than fund his videos, books, and lectures.

These are facts. This isn't even an opinion. I am not trying to attack Greger, and I think that if he dropped his biases at the front door, and didn't use flawed or non-existent studies to promote this that or the other, I would like him more.

But to be honest, no, he isn't this infallible being people claim him to be.

and no, the WHO report, if you read it, does not mention Chicken Nuggets or Turkey Slices. The FAQ section I linked to only mentions poultry once, as the definiton of a processed food. But it also said:

"21. Should we eat only poultry and fish?

The cancer risks associated with consumption of poultry and fish were not evaluated."

Read the actual post before commenting on whether or not a blog is "opinion"

Sincerely,

The Bozo

OMG, you predicted that I'd reply in a back and forth conversation.

That's the thing with conversations, you say something, I say something back, ad nauseam. It's how they work.

I'm done here when I decide I'm done. Not you.

Lol, you're butt hurt.

You attempted to shutdown the conversation but you failed.

Are you assuming I'm male?

Please, feel free to reply.

But this time, perhaps you could address my point.

Or maybe share some more opinions and try to pass them off as fact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/opinion/campaign-stops/a-week-for-all-time.html?emc=edit_th_20160617&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=40977923

Golden quote:
"In this week of trial and tragedy, Trump showed us how he would govern — by fear, by intimidation, by lies, by turning American against American, by exhibiting all the empathy of a sociopath. Seal this week. Put it in a time capsule. Teach it. History will remember. But come November, will we?"

By the way, I've stayed out of this extremely boring back and forth. There was nothing to be gained by weighing in. It finally has come to a blessed end, just as this op-ed was published in the New York Times.

So I'll say it again, since this video is my contribution to the Sift and I am claiming final word. I may not be accorded it, but I am claiming it.

It is a stone hard fact that eligible does not equal fit. A brain-damaged accident victim with the right birth certificate, with the right age, is eligible to be president. That person is not fit to be president. This is logic. It just is. You can ignore the crystalline beauty of the fact of this analogy and have a fine time talking around it. Doesn't change the fact that Ken Burns is right, Timothy Egan is right, Mitt Romney, both Bushes, Meg Whitman, and the Republican strategist who is quoted in this op-ed are all right.

Trump is unfit for the Presidency.

@Syntaxed

Whoa. Hyberbole much?

Beheading hundreds of thousands? That is factually untrue.

So. At this point, I need to bow out of this back and forth. This isn't a serious conversation.

And that's "ma'am", by the way. This photo is of my father, who died last year. I like this photo. It makes me smile.

so i am sitting here drinking my coffee reading this thread and i have to say...

depressing.

so many wonderful people that i admire and respect getting twisted about?

words.

not the intent,nor over-all context..but words.

i can see where @newtboy is coming from,and what he is laying down is pretty non-controversial.i also see what @bareboards2 is laying down,and is not really in opposition to what newt is talking about.

both ideologies can reside in the same context and not be in conflict.in fact they compliment each other and ....and maybe i am reading their positions wrong..they actually agree on the fundamentals.

@bareboards2 actually addressed this by pointing out that "tone" can be misinterpreted.(good for you BB) and really the exchange between newt and BB was about their own self-identification.

yet this entire thread is almost exclusively focusing on words,and the gravitas and weight given to those words by the individual,which is subjective.

i feel newts pain.
i had a run where i was posting videos exposing hyper-militant third wave feminists and how they were using the justice system to punish those who disagreed with them,and every self-identified feminist came out of the wood work to declare their disappointment in me and defend the very thing they identified with.

what confused me was why people would even attempt to defend that absolute cluster fuck of abuse as somehow even being remotely to do with actual feminism.until i realized that many hadn't even watched the video or read the articles .so they were not defending those third wave feminists that had abused a justice system but rather defending a term that they self-identified as.

after long (and i mean long ..@Payback is still in therapy) back and forths between myself and fellow sifters.when i FINALLY got them to address the specific situation,not one...not ONE sifter..felt morally obligated to defend those feminists actions.

why?
because taken on its singular merits,those feminists were fucking wrong.

then why all the defensive posturing?
why the passive aggressive swipes at me?
and the exhaustive back and forths just to get self-identified feminists to at least admit that those particular feminists had abused their position to punish a man for simply disagreeing.

because they were defending feminism in general.
because they self-identified as feminists and failed to see the situation as it was and jumped to defend a WORD that they happened to identify with.

as a whole we can,as a society hold onto philosophies that are not mutually exclusive.
so you can be a feminist and a humanist.
or a humanist and an MRA advocate.

@bareboards2 may be a feminist but i know that if she witnessed me being harassed and discriminated against she would jump to my defense,as would @newtboy.

there are people who identify as something and yet can still be major dickweeds.so what they self-identify as does not automatically give them a pass.

so dont get so caught up in identity politics my friends.
they are just words after all.
just listen to the person talking,they will reveal if they are a total tool soon enough.how they self-identify is irrelevant.

I re-read my post, all I said was that you were doing pretty much what Bareboards predicted, ie:

"Is this going to be one of these long back-and-forths, where you try to talk me out of something? I really don't want to go there. It's exhausting. "

We are all well aware of your opinion. And as I said, you have gone well past the point of discussion and now you're just repeating the same opinion over and over again as if reading it for the umpteenth time is going to peel back scales from our eyes...

I'll quote you earlier:

I'm stating that the word "feminist" as a word is not descriptive of a movement that works for "equality", it's descriptive of a movement that puts women first.

Some of those of us that have worked for equality of the sexes for decades are somewhat insulted by that misnomer, and very insulted by those that use the name "feminist" to describe man haters (that means both the man haters themselves and those that call all feminists man haters).

A misnomer in your opinion. We heard you the first time, I'd guess almost everyone understood you the first time. Some of us just don't agree with you, and a certain member has already politely asked you not to do exactly what you're doing. You're so worried about what name is attached to the movement to accord everyone equal rights that you forgot common courtesy? \= |

ps. I particularly enjoyed the passive aggressive snipe in bold below. Only like minded people really understand you and those that disagree are obviously misunderstanding (otherwise they'd totally agree right???). You'll just have to live with the concept that the sift is not a trigger-free-safe-space-echo-chamber. ; )

No, if you believe in and work for gender equality FOR WOMEN, you're a feminist.
Those who believe in gender equality for all are called egalitarians.

Why 'feminism' is historically 'feminism' is because it works to secure the rights of women. Period. The feminist movement has never, as far as I know, worked against unequal rights for women when the inequality benefits women...or said another way, worked for equality FOR men.

It was not ONLY women at the start, only mostly women, and you disrespect and dismiss the contributions of all those men who worked against their own self interests to secure equal rights for you. How rude and ungrateful....I bet you would be upset if women's contributions to men's issues were dismissed like that.
No, men have not done the bulk of the work, but they have been invaluable in getting action many, many times. Calling it feminism and acting like it's only by women totally 'disacknowledges' all those self sacrificing men....which is why I have a problem. If we and our votes, money, and efforts don't count and are completely unapreciated, then buh-bye.
Again, no one is even suggesting renaming the entire movement, I suggested that people WHO THINK LIKE ME might start or join another that's more inclusive from the start. If you don't think like me, it's not about you, and even if you do, it's not a command, it's barely a suggestion.

If you focus solely on those with the MOST disadvantages, you only swing the pendulum of unfairness the other direction in a never ending struggle back and forth. Only by focusing on equality for all can you come to the right solutions to inequalities.

(Expletive deleted)! Men and whites ABSOLUTELY need equal rights. Yes, in MOST cases men and whites have advantages, not all by far like you said, still today a crackhead mother is more likely to get full custody than a fully employed stand up father...that is not the ONLY case where women are given advantages men aren't....another off the top of my head, domestic violence, men will ALWAYS be the one thought to be the aggressor without clear evidence to the contrary, but that's simply false, and leaves many abused men victimized twice. Same for sexual abuse/rape. Men get zero support if they've been raped, only ridicule and disbelief. Take each situation individually, or you'll continue to make that insulting, repulsive, self serving mistake that perpetuates inequality and pits men against women.

Equal child custody rights....yes, good example....how has the feminist movement worked to secure that....for men? If the imbalance is in their favor, that's FINE with feminists. I disagree strongly, and I won't be considering myself one anymore.

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

Because I have proudly called myself a feminist since at least 1976, if not before.

I started calling myself a Humanist also maybe in 1990? Somewhere around there? I am not giving up the term Feminist though. No matter who tries to co-opt it or suppress my use of it.

Or even "oppress" my use of it, if I might go that far. Why do I have to fight you to use a simple word to describe myself?

The scolding continues, by the way. Telling me that I am wrong to use a term I have proudly used for over 40 years. Because you and some of your friends don't like it and don't want to use it, for your own valid reasons.

Please stop telling Feminists that the word was never "descriptive of their goals" when in fact it is very descriptive.

Equality for women. Period.

I'm not telling you to stop labeling yourself only a Humanist. I was clear that I understood your point when I said that Humanist is an umbrella word that covers Feminist.

Is this going to be one of these long back-and-forths, where you try to talk me out of something? I really don't want to go there. It's exhausting.

Maybe the real question you might consider asking yourself is -- why is it so important to you that I hew to your definitions? Is it just an intellectual exercise, the fun of the argument? Well, it isn't fun to me. It feels lecturing and minimizing of my personal experience and knowledge and life lessons I have learned.

I know you don't intend that. However, I am telling you straight out, clearly, that is how it feels to me and I don't like it. I've been on the receiving end for FORTY FUCKING YEARS why it is inappropriate for some reason or other to call myself a feminist. The reasons change, but the goal always seems to be same: To stop me and others from overtly saying that we care about women and their place in society.

It's not going to happen. After 40 years, it just isn't going to happen.

I'm a feminist. I care about women and their place in society.

@newtboy - I suspect that the reason you haven't seen it in print that Dems who support Clinton will vote for Sanders is because you don't read anything but Sanders stuff. Dan Savage has even said in print he will support Sanders -- and yet what you repeated was the fact that he supports Hillary. You missed that he will gladly vote for Sanders. How could that be?

We all have our biases. And we all are, more or less, trapped in our own echo chambers.

What bothers me most about the attacks on HIllary is that the vast majority are bogus that were ginned up by the REPUBLICAN SMEAR MACHINE. And nobody looks that nasty beast in the eye and names it. Or when Hillary has done it, she is ridiculed for it. Instead, these lies are repeated as truth. You say you don't like lies -- how about pushing back on that crap, instead of embracing it, since it helps your candidate?

What I don't get from your position is what exactly you want to happen? Hillary is ahead on delegates and the popular vote. You want her to just concede right now? Is that what you think should happen?

I have lost track, but last I read, Sanders needed to win something like 65% of the remaining contests to win the nomination.

So do it. Go out and do it.

And I'll vote for Sanders.

To me, this is all more proof that you want the world to be different than it actually is.

And as I have said repeatedly, as much as idealists annoy the hell out of me with their purity tests and unrealistic, not of this world, points of view -- I am desperately glad these idealistic warriors exist. Because otherwise, nothing would ever change.

(I'm not happy about conservative idealists -- Tea Party purists who are constipated, me-me-and-mine ideologues. And I have to acknowledge that we need them, too. The continual pulling of the middle by the fringes -- that is indeed the way the world works. The pendulum that swings back and forth throughout human history.)

it looks so simple! I still can't believe that tall thing doesn't tip over from the rocking back and forth.

That idea came directly from ahimsa, (who I've been going back and forth with all day) who specifically said today that convincing people to adopt veganism is about 'social justice'.
I'm sincerely sorry if I attributed that sentiment to you inappropriately.

What I find insulting is the sudden influx of a number of vocal, shaming, guilt spreading vegans here trying to make everyone think just like they do or else feel ashamed and like they're terrible, evil, abusive people...or unthinking idiots. I'll only speak for myself, but I don't want to see that here.
You're welcome to your opinion, and welcome to share it, but when you start telling other people what THEY should or must do/feel/think, you've crossed a line into social justice warrioring, and I'll rail against it every time I notice that happen. When you add multiple propaganda links, the bile will build quickly.

I read the update. It gave some insight to your thought process, but didn't solve my issue.
You're mistaken, and it seemed a bit narcissistic, to think everyone that doesn't agree with you must just be naïve and has never considered this subject thoughtfully. The anger stems from THAT (apparent) insulting thought, not from some internal logic struggle about loving some animals and eating others (or maybe loving AND eating some), it's anger at people telling others how to think, how to act, how to feel, how to eat....and vitriol when the reasoning behind that direction comes from questionable at BEST, completely discredited at worst, internet propaganda posing as science. THAT is a big pet peeve of mine, no matter what the subject may be, and I've been dealing with it all day long.
It may have been inappropriate to lump you in with him, again I apologize if the complaint didn't fit.

Weird? Poor design is more like it. You don't know how many times ive had to help people find the edit function...a shit ton. It should be under the video. More obvious and accessible.

Yes, just opt out at the bottom of the page. You can go back and forth if you desire.

I've seen this piece or one very much like it at Bau-Xi Gallery in Vancouver and he's right. People do double takes as they walk past it, then start walking back and forth while looking at it with bemused expressions.

I want to be more impressed than I am.
First of all, I expected the can to be full.
Second, Cans in the US are soooo thin, they're practically paper.
I always forget about how thin the cans are because of how thick they are in Canada. I expect they'd only dent one of our cans.
Looking at the blasted remains of the can, the flaps are waving back and forth while cans here are so rigid, that would never happen.