I'm not joking. I've gotten into heated debates on multiple occasions with people on Google+ who honestly believe there is no way the Earth is not flat. At first, I couldn't believe they weren't fucking with me, but they were SERIOUS. Terrifyingly so.

You go and look at their other posts, and there are whole communities filled with certifiably crazy people talking about some seriously demented theories. NASA photos from ISS are simulated; the round earth theory is a sophisticated psy-op meant to enslave our minds; the entire universe is flat, rotates around the Earth, and gravity is somehow a lie, and every photo and video showing a round Earth is a fake.

These people are breeding, dude. In 2016. I'm terrified.

What a great discussion, but those fucking dogs. I hate small dogs. Not all of those small dogs are bad breeds, but collectively they're like a gang of snappy, squeaky, barking leper gnomes with sharp teeth. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Interviewer is like JESUS.

Anyway. lol -- concise theory on the current state of the presidency -- and the American class war.

He's got that same fucked up Euro-grill at :20. Brits always have bad teeth. The result of centuries of royal in-breeding. >_<

"Genetically engineered" in the same way he was genetically engineered to be an idiot.... by selective breeding, which is not artificial genetic modification as he intends to imply.
Having just come home from visiting Iceland, and after visiting farms there, and also farms in New Zealand, I can say unequivocally that most farms in those countries are what you think of, peaceful sheep in large bucolic fields enjoying their lives and not being injured during once a year sheering of wool that's otherwise a problem for them to shed naturally. I won't speak to Australia, since I've never been there...maybe all sheerers are dicks there.
No farmer would accept the behavior shown, you can't sell wool from a dead or bloody sheep. He needs to get his theory straight...are they only interested in maximum profit, or do they abuse their animals without concern, because it can't be both.
If he really wants to do good for the animals of the world, he should refrain from breeding himself. His kids will probably wear nothing but fur when they leave home just to spite him.

Absolutely the officer should be charged. I think it's a huge disservice to everybody that these things are so often dealt with behind closed doors. It breeds contempt and distrust, and it eliminates an important opportunity for the public to understand some of the issues inherent in policing, and it seems to let horrible crimes go largely unaddressed.

But 'triple cuffed' can only mean a daisy chain of cuffs. Nothing else makes any sense, and to do so means that they are making some kind of attempt to accommodate the comfort of the individual during the cuffing. Or do you think it means having 3 sets of hand cuffs individually applied to your wrists? Come on... Doesn't excuse the cuffing of the guy, obviously, but thinking that triple cuffing is some heinous extreme version of cuffing is absurd.

You acknowledge that he had bad aim, and that the majority of shots missed the intended target, whichever target that was. You acknowledge that poor leadership, training, and protocol may have contributed to this outcome, but then you make the leap that because these this incompetency, it must have been intentional. It simply doesn't follow. You might ask them to be held responsible, but it doesn't mean it was the intent.

Saying 'I don't know' in the immediate aftermath of a charged situation where you are just coming to realize you made a huge mistake and nearly killed an innocent seems reasonable. It does not mean 'I meant to kill you and missed." It seems to indicate a state of confusion or shock.

I heard absolutely no reference to any time frame, or them preventing medical assistance for more than 15 minutes. I'll just remain agnostic on that angle.

I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought that intent combined with action was the very core of attempted murder. Murder is all about intent, and attempted is all about action. Attempted manslaughter of some degree seems the most realistic charge to make, but that's up to people that better know the law, and are willing to spend hundreds of hours analyzing the situation.

A huge problem with the system is the way that justice is delayed for so long (assuming it is ever meted out). People want instant karma, immediate redress for wrongs committed. People see something, get heated, and feel that a strong reaction is called for in the moment. The system on the other hand is meant to be about dispassionate discussion of the details of the situation, and can take a long time to play out. This is a big part of why it seems so reprehensible when it's carried out behind closed doors; it looks like it's being swept under the carpet. Similarly this is why media coverage over sensationalizes crime. But that's a discussion for another day.

Anyways, I've already typed too much about this I think.

There aren't even words.

Saddam was a bad guy is absolutely the most ignorant remark you can make. Were Stalin, Hitler and Mao simply 'bad' guys? Saddam committed multiple genocides against his own people. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed not as collateral damage, but systematically. The remaining widows were systematically raped to impregnate the Kurdish women with half-Arab children and breed the Kurds out of existence. If that's not enough, Saddam invaded and seized Kuwait and declared a part of Iraq. In the Iran-Iraq war, he made extensive use of banned chemical and biological weapons against Iranian forces, before turning them on Kurdish Iraqi's as well. Anybody content to just call that 'bad' behaviour is morally bankrupt.

Oh, but along the way Saddam brutally murdered anybody that spoke out against him, or had their daughters raped or their families otherwise held hostage or also killed. More over, because Saddam classed these people as 'terrorists', clearly we should take him at his word. In that one sense, yes, Saddam was effective at killing and pacifying the people he counted as 'terrorists'. That of course is missing the fact that Saddam was the singularly most terrifying monster in the entire Middle East at the time.

Nobody can deny that the current situation made the life of that lady and her children infinitely more complicated, and it will make it more miserable in the future.

However, what about all the Chavs? No, I'm not being sarcastic. What about all the people whose life can hardly become more miserable, because it's been miserable all along with no hope for improvement? Life is shit for a lot of people, and it has been for a long time.

What were their options in this referendum?

Remain told them that their quality of living would decline in case of a Brexit, and that it would decline more slowly if they remain part of the EU. In short, they offered them fuck all. Any notion of reforming the EU from within to make it care about the proletariat is an illusion, and a costly one if you look at either Greece or the recessionary EU in general.

So they went with the demagogues, who spewed such outrageous lies that even Goebbels would be ashamed. But they made an offer nonetheless.

All this talk about stock prices or the exchange value of the Pound is meaningless dribble if you live in places like Nuneaton. How is telling them all to sod off an irrational decision if all they did for decades was shit on you?

So yeah, I fucking hate the anti-immigration part of the discussion. It's despicable. But the patronising reactions from not just the elites but also large swaths of the Remain campaign gives me assteroids.

The casual way they discuss how to ignore or reverse the result of the referendum is a sign of why it went this way in the first place. They look down on the decision made by "those people". It makes no sense to them, so it has to be irrational. Silly plebs are not informed enough to make smart decisions, let's educate them. Or better yet, let's make the decisions for them.

It just oozes condescension. And it breeds contempt.

To end on a personal note: how the German government now appears to be the moderating factor on the EU side is beyond fucked up, given how they were the ones to piss on the plebs the most with their anal fixation on austerity. You really cannot make this shit up...

Edit:
Here's one for sovereignty: just last night, Jean-Claude Juncker said that the European Commission doesn't want national parliaments to vote on CETA. What's the point of democracy then?

@ChaosEngine.

Yeah. I know. Your last sentence says it all -- he didn't achieve near as much as was hoped for. Hence your disappointment.

From my perspective, I never believed he could do all that was hoped. Because this isn't a dictatorship (thank god, maybe we can survive Trump.) It was clear to me from the beginning that is wasn't possible.

So I wasn't disappointed. I was glad for all that he did manage to get through.

And that is what makes him consequential.

I have my list of things I am pissed at him about for doing -- including the murdering of brown people, including bin Laden. (And I'm pissed at most of the people in this country for cheering state sponsored targeted assassination and ignoring the huge collateral damage of that day and the days that followed.)

History isn't going to judge him on what he promised and couldn't get done. History will judge him on what he actually did. Half-assed heathcare is half an ass more than was managed in over a hundred years. LGBT people aren't disappointed.

And being the first black president -- he'll be in the history books for being that particular breed of person -- the minority who is 10 times better than the ruling majority, who swallows the indignities of prejudice with grace and determination, who rises above the humiliations to become The First. Think Jackie Robinson -- that is what we remember about him, that is the story that has survived. (The recent PBS doc taught me a fuller picture of who he actually was after he survived those brutal first two years in the majors.) That is the story we crave.

He's consequential, all right. Not perfect. Consequential.

Looks like it's a trait of the breed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD7CA6NR_qo

Vicious chihuahuas, such a "bully-breed"

Pretty much what @Mordhaus said.

There's no way to sustain the numbers we have today without changing 99% of people's habits, most effectively starting with breeding habits.
With the need for only 10% the power required today, you would never need to use nuclear power at all, or hydro. You could supply it on wind and solar with a small fossil fuel peak power generator system.
The planet MAY survive....but I don't count only extremophile bacteria as really 'alive'. Worst case scenario, we could be Venus 2.0, in my eyes, that's not alive.

My mistake.
I'll admit, his delivery is going down hill these days. I've been a fan for a LONG time, but he's not as good as he once was by far.
I get especially annoyed when he gets upset when his audience groans at a bad taste joke, it's like he doesn't understand that's a POSITIVE reaction to a bad taste joke, and indicates his audience understands it's in bad taste. You would think he would know that after 3+ decades in snarky 'comedy'.

To your points....
When a parent takes the kids side over the teachers....well, that depends on what the issue is, but on it's face that's also coddling. The implication/infrence is that it would be about the child's behavior in class, or their academic performance, and in either case taking the child's side over the teacher is teaching them that they are more important than the authority, and/or that their word is going to be taken over an adult in authority, and their POV or opinion is the only one that matters. That's terrible, and sets them up for failure and/or prison later.
Not telling a child to shut the fuck up when they are rudely interrupting adults DOES breed poorly mannered narcissists, as it's teaching the child that what they have to say is the MOST important thing, far more important than the adult discussion they are interrupting. That's terrible, bad manners, completely unrealistic, and not good for the child's development into a decent human being. Children are not adults, and 99.9% of the time what they want to say/ask is not important. Even in those rare cases where it is important, not teaching them to not interrupt creates mannerless narcissistic douchebags that never allow other people to speak and believe their every fleeting thought is golden.
Asking a kid where they want to go to dinner....OK, that's stupid. If you just ask them, the child isn't automatically in control. If you always ask them at every meal and defer to their whim over the wishes of adults (which is what I think he meant, but not what he said), that's coddling and breeding a narcissist that believes his is the only opinion that matters to anyone and should always take precedent over other's needs/wants.

Are farm animals purchased (or bred) with the intention of making money. Yes. Does that mean their well being and happiness is not a concern? Absolutely not. Even factory farmers would admit that happier, healthier animals are more productive (grow faster) and are better quality. It does take more money and effort to farm that way, and is not scalable, so corporate farms go for the quicker dollar at the expense of the animal, usually. That doesn't mean all farms operate that way, with profit being the first and only concern.
And no, it's not 100% certain farmed animals will die young or be abused. For instance, when we raised cattle, we allowed the herd to roam and breed naturally, took good care of them, and many died of old age before we sold off the herd. My aunt still raises her own beef with I think <10 cows, and they often die of old age because she can't eat all she raises, they live happy lives. In factory farms, you're likely correct.
My point is, if you really want to make a difference in reducing animal suffering, I think you would have more success trying to convince people to buy free range, non hormone meats from good smaller local farms with good reputations for proper animal treatment over attempting to convince them to give up meat completely. It's a matter of how much people are willing to change, and getting the best outcome possible for the animals, right? I think convincing meat eaters to go vegan is a non starter 99% of the time at best.

And to answer the above morality question, would it be immoral for you to do that to my dog? Yes. Would it be immoral for ME to do it to my dog? I guess that depends on many things, like if he's used completely as part of the early termination (eaten, worn, etc.), is he euthanized painlessly and without fear, etc. ...but I liked Logan's Run, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask those kinds of morality questions. ;-)

The best evidence you have for your claims (as I see it) is anecdotal at best.
3rd world countries 1) are not at all vegetarian and 2) don't get most cancers Westerners do largely because they don't eat processed foods or expose themselves to carcinogenic chemicals constantly....we do.
Again, NEVER get your science from the internet.

"Pro-life" is by definition "anti-choice".

If you're really pro-planet, a MUCH better way to go about it is try to get people to have fewer children. That will make exponentially more difference than some people eating fewer animals. In fact, if past human behavior is a guide, if we all stop eating animals, animals will cease to exist for the most part, so that's not helpful to them at all.

Again, fewer people is the proper answer, not forcefully change biologically engrained behavior. I made that choice, so I can eat all the animals I ever possibly can and I've done more for the planet and it's animals with that single action than 1000 vegans with vegan children...or more positive difference than one vegan with children, depending on how you want to look at it.

As a living being, I'm standing up for all living beings who certainly object to your choice to breed, both the voiceless and those with voice, and saying stop making choices that negatively impact us all, like having more children and grandchildren. If enough people would do that, eating meat won't be an ecological issue. ;-)

I didn't watch the videos, I don't get my science from the internet. I read scientific publications that contain peer reviewed science papers, and I've never seen one that said ALL the nutrients found in meat could be replaced with vegetable nutrients easily, simply, viably, or without excessive expense.
Also, it ignores that fact that most produce available in the first world comes with a huge carbon footprint and massive ecological damage because of the production methods, so it's not the 'clean' trade off you seem to assume.

Small family farms were plenty to meet demand for all of human history until about the last 50 years. Quit having kids, and it will be enough again and we can stop abusing animals and the eco system just to make enough food for humans.

A short, good life is preferable to no life at all.

Nope. I should have scheduled the one in that picture that's mine to end his life at least a year earlier, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. NOT doing it was immoral. If someone had been willing to eat him, I would be all for it. If someone wants to eat me, go for it...I suggest slow smoking and a molasses based BBQ sauce. Eating my dog would be ecologically sound, as opposed to the cremation we ended up with, or burial, being the only other option available.
If I raised dogs for food, I would not think twice about ending their life in their prime. That would be the reason they existed in the first place, and without that reason they would never get that chance.

Again, milk cows only exist because someone wanted to partner with them to benefit both. Without that symbiosis, they would not get the opportunity to exist at all. IMO, existence is preferable to no existence. Yes, they need to get pregnant at least once, but as I understand it, that's it so long as you keep up with milking them. Veal, now there I'll totally agree with you that IT'S abuse.

Animals are not people. They do not usually have the same need for freedom, and those that do have that need were never domesticated. It is not immoral to form a symbiosis with another species as long as you both benefit in some way, otherwise you're just a parasite.

? Taste, as in how animals taste? BS, that's not all. That's a component, sure, but there's incredibly more to it than that.

I prefer to give animals a reason to exist, knowing that without that human centric reason, they simply won't get the chance, but I do my best to purchase animal products that are created with the least distress and best conditions for the animals in question...granted that's not always possible to know.

Trust me, I've tried vegetarian 'meats', I know the difference, and absolutely don't prefer vegan fare, or vegetarian fare that attempts to emulate meat. If I want meat, I'll eat meat. You'll get my butter only by prying it from my cold, dead hands. ;-)

I don't think taste is quite as simple as you imply. Yes, there is a component of 'addiction' to certain foods, especially sugar rich foods.
There's no such thing as vegan cheese or chocolate, you mean tofu and carob...and I agree, they both suck.

Sorry, that's simply wrong. A poor eating vegan can certainly negatively impact the planet with their food choices. It's easy. Oreos for instance, are most certainly made with ecologically damaging factory farm methods creating the ingredients...well, those methods and chemists. I don't know off hand the carbon footprint and ecological impact of an oreo, but it's not "none".

I hope you don't feel like that I'm pushing anything onto you. I'd like to just present the facts. I wasn't vegan until I turned 33, so I'm certainly not judging or trying to give out this information in order to put anyone down or elevate myself. I'm not trying to troll, I'm not trying to out-do you. I'm also typing this with limited time, so apologies if some of it sounds frank. (The videos below do a better job than me anyway).

1) A proper plant based diet makes it 8 times less likely for cancer cells to grow. There is a reason why 3rd world countries (that have largely plant based diets due to poverty) don't get cancers us westerners have. Also the #1 killer in the western world is cardiovascular disease, in the US alone one person dies every 8 seconds from it. Which is around 400, 000 people a year.

I know you're sceptical. I was too. So here's some actual science from actual doctors, who have come these conclusions on proper peer reviewed and non biased / industry funded research:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZtPGyLaiHE1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYTf0z_zVs03
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XVf36nwraw4


2)Vegans aren't anti-choice, they are pro life, pro planet. The actions of people eating animal products goes way further than a person choosing to eat something(sure they are typically ignorant of the consequences, as most of pre-vegans were too). When a large portion of the planet chooses to eat animal products it effects everyone, because it's destroying the planet through global warming, deforestation, dumping of animal agriculture waste and so on. It kills more animals than just ones being brutalised in cages. It will eventually kill us too. To me it seems like a bad idea to destroy the only place in the universe that we can currently live.
So by eating animal products you're really making a choice for you, for me, for my hypothetical grandchildren, and of course for the animal that almost certainly wants to keep being alive. So as a vegan I'd like you refrain for making choices that impact my life, and I'm standing up for the voiceless animals who would certainly object to your choice too.

3) As you (hopefully) saw in at least one of the videos above, there is nothing in meat which cannot be obtained from a plant source (and without all of the bad stuff that comes with meat).



Your idea of a farm with humanely raised animals is a good start, but it's just not practical, the earth isn't big enough to meet demand. It's also still highly unethical as you still kill the animals at an early age in order to harvest their flesh.

You have a picture of two dogs in your avatar. I'm sure if someone decided to schedule their lives to end early for any reason, let alone to eat them, you'd find that pretty immoral right? You no doubt treat your dogs very well, but that doesn't make it OK to kill when they reach adolescence. If I said I wanted to eat your dogs (I don't of course) then any reason you came up with applies still to any farm animals that you currently feel fine with eating.

The animals also aren't stupid and they're aware of what's going on. My grandparents owned a massive farm with cows/pigs/rabbits/chickens and crops as well. They were living very comfortable lives as far as farm animals go, but they did not like it when you approached them, they knew what was waiting for them.
When you see typical farm animals that are truly free this is what they look like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIF3BYBXZWA
They behave like pets, even cows kick a ball around.

Also cows milk is only created for when the cow is pregnant. Even if the cow is living in cow utopia, if it is getting milked then that's milk that should have gone to a calf. It was most likely artificially impregnated, and also most likely bought from someone that breeds female cows, and kills the male cows (since you only need one bull to harvest the semen).
When you really think about it, even the best treated animals are being breed and used to make someone money as the primary goal. That is immoral.



So what it really comes down to is taste. The ethics, the environmentalism, the health don't play a role in the debate at all, and hopefully one of those things is important to you, perhaps all 3.

Being animal product free isn't as hard as you think, it's as simple as swapping out a few ingredients here and there. It's not all about eating broccoli and kale. You'll still be eating burritos, burgers, pizzas, pastas, curries etc. Just slightly different and before you know it, you'll barely know the difference, and eventually prefer them that way.

And this is probably the part I found the hardest to believe myself, but once I knew about it, veganism became the easiest thing in the world. Taste is completely influenced by the foods you eat, because of brain chemistry. I thought I could never stop eating two things: cheese and chocolate. After about a month of not eating them (and yes it takes a little bit of effort towards the 3 week mark) you will break the dopamine effect in your brain and you'll never want to eat them again. I can eat vegan cheese and dairy free chocolate, but it does absolutely nothing for me these days. This is coming from someone that wouldn't eat regular chocolate, I had to have the good stuff, everyday. The cravings get pretty intense at the 3 week mark, I won't lie, but then one day you realise you've not had the cravings for several days.
When it comes to meats, even if they are well done, all I can smell is oil and blood. Eggs all I smell is sulphur. I find all of that quite repugnant and I see them for what they really are, rather than what my dopamine recepters tell me.

Now of course you can be unhealthy vegan, and eat all of the oreos, chips, and dairy free chocolate you want. That's up to you, either way the planet and animals don't care which way you go about it