This is unbelievably sloppy thinking. You have a woeful understanding of no true scotsman as well as, apparently, the english language in general.

There are divorced catholics because catholic doctrine is not that it's literally impossible to obtain a divorce. Catholics who get divorces don't suffer sudden existential collapse and wink out of reality. There are no catholics who doubt and despise the bible, who believe that there's no god or historical jesus, and who participate in no catholic tradition. That would be contradictory, and oh look, it's possible to construct a 'no true...' statement that is nevertheless correct. There are no pro-lifers who believe abortion is fine and should be freely available to everyone. There are no democrats who are republicans. There are no jews who believe jesus is the son of god. There are no peaceful muslims.

Put that aside for now. You're arguing for the end of all moral judgement and distinction. Humans are not consistent, therefore it would be outrageous to condemn a car thief for stealing a car. After all, look at all the times he didn't steal a car. Fuck off.

It's possible to make generalisations about arbitrarily large groups that share common attributes. People who steal things are thieves. Apples are fruits. Muslims are violent.

By definition, all muslims share first the belief that mohammed was a good person and second the conviction to follow his example and instruction. By necessity, all muslims share the guilt for the evils of that man, and the evils brought into the world as a result of his legacy.

Somewhat disappointed that he didn't include my personal favorite argument against Pascal's Wager: conflicting faiths.

Instead of a 4-cell chart (2x2 from believe/don't believe and god exists/doesn't), the chart should arguably be a LOT bigger. Plenty of individual branches of Christianity will tell you that *their* specific brand is the only one that will get you into heaven. And that's just relatively minor distinctions -- different sorts of Protestants, or Protestants vs Catholics, etc. We haven't even got to Christianity vs Judaism vs Islam -- all of which fall under the "Abrahamic" umbrella -- but very few Christian faiths think that Jews or Muslims are just as eligible to enter heaven as they are (or vice-versa). From there you can get to things as disparate as Hindu vs Ancient Egyptian vs Zoroastrianism, and everything else.

With that sort of chart, it is just as easy to say that choosing to believe in the *wrong* god could possibly be associated with a more negative outcome than washing your hands of it and going Atheist. Maybe I chose to believe in Ra the Sun God when Zeus ends up being the one true deity. Come to find that Zeus, as it turns out, tolerates people who don't believe in him as long as they don't believe in one of his competitors (like Ra). Therefore I get a lightning bolt to the keyster and a trip to Hades while my nonbeliever buddy gets a ticket to Elysium.

Of course it's all a load of bollocks, but if your argument is a load of bollocks (like Pascal's wager) you don't get to complain when somebody flips it on its head and uses it to argue the exact opposite...

@bobknight33 --

I continue to agree with you on a lot of what you're saying (but not all).

Trump and Sanders are both riding a wave of frustration in the people, as you say. Their current popularity, even if both only go downhill from here, has already partially sent that message to both parties. I don't think Trump would make a good president, but if he wins the election I think that really hammering home that message of frustration could be a significant positive outcome. Same goes for some hypothetical scenario resulting in Sanders getting elected, although I personally feel quite positive about the other stuff that I think Sanders would bring to the table, unlike how I feel about Trump.

If there's one area where I think the government could stand to get *bigger*, it's in oversight, evaluation, and accountability. Being under the microscope and heavily scrutinized perhaps isn't a recipe for optimal efficiency, but I think we desperately need more of it in government AND the private sector.

Early in my lifetime, a large corporation that had a relatively benign monopoly by today's standards was considered a big enough deal for the government to step in and break it up. AT&T / Bell got split into the "Baby Bells". Corporations now are vast juggernauts compared to that, but since they make gigantic profits I guess we collectively see them as bastions of Capitalism. But I think that in reality they are doing much more harm to Capitalism with their monopolies, collusion, and corruption.

I think Sanders is the candidate most likely to even *try* to do something to roll back that shift, and bring back oversight and accountability to government. Hillary sure as hell wouldn't do it. And I don't think Trump would either -- he is the literal face of a gigantic Corporation himself, after all.

I had high hopes for Obama. He didn't live up to them, but to be fair I think the lion's share of that is on the Legislative branch. That taught me to be careful about putting much of any stock into Presidential campaign promises, particularly about things outside the scope of what the Executive branch can actually do.

I think Trump and Clinton both put *themselves* first, ahead of all else. I don't think Clinton gives a flying fuck about any of us plebs, beyond attempting to pander to large demographic blocks of us just enough to secure our votes. Maybe Trump cares more for Joe Average than Clinton, but only incidentally -- as a Capitalist he needs Joe Averages to buy his products, and buy into his image.

I don't get the same read from Sanders. I think he actually does give a shit. A lot of his agenda would require a cooperative Legislature, which he wouldn't get -- just like Obama. So in terms of changing the status quo, perhaps his biggest impact would simply be in sending the establishment a loud and clear message that we are no longer content with business as usual in Washington. A message very similar to what electing Trump would send.

It would/ will take me some soul searching, but assuming that Hillary gets the Democrat nomination over Sanders, a desire to send that message might be enough to get me to vote for Trump. But voting for a reasonably tolerable option from a minor party might serve that end just as well. Say Jesse Ventura running as a Libertarian, or Jill Stein from the Green Party. Stein has the very distinct advantage (from my perspective) of being the only current candidate who has said that she would grant a Presidential pardon to Ed Snowden (although Ventura would too, IF he runs). Pardons are one of the few things that a President can actually *do* unilaterally -- and that makes that a pretty damn good "single issue" prompt for my vote, in my opinion.

You can dance all you like, but you are still hypocritical. A war plane was never designed as anything other than a device to KILL. A hammer might have been used to kill, but it was not designed for it.

So, I am not trying to say you are less moral, I am just trying to get you to SEE that you are just as capable of making distinctions regarding your values as we are. We are all the sum of our parts, we choose moral stances and we choose to avoid others we consider to be less necessary. In choosing to follow the vegan dogma, you unfortunately have put yourself in a lifestyle that usually carries at least a thin veneer of "I am better than you", when in fact you have merely chosen to restrict your diet. It doesn't make you any better or worse than someone who chooses to quit smoking, or perhaps to only ride public transportation.

As far as winning, I have no intention of winning because this is an unwinnable discussion. I will neither be able to persuade you that you are being selectively moral and elitist, nor will you be able to persuade me that mankind should cease to partake in the flesh of other creatures (if we choose to). The most I can do is call you on your comments, you can take or leave my opinions the same way I would do yours.

I won't resort to a catchphrase like bacon, but the end result is the same, futile as you said.

@ahimsa

and now we move to stage two of the predictable vegan argument:

distinctions.


oh fuck me with a razor bladed dildo this is some tiring and facile shit.

look man,you are seriously missing my main point:
pretentious twattery and a morally and philosophically inconsistent stance.

so you can keep quoting anybody and everybody because it is apparent you really do not understand what you are quoting,and it is not adding anything to our discussion...at all.

maybe..
possibly..
just something to consider...
you approach expressing the values and benefits of being a vegan sans the self-righteousness,the pretension and condescension?

that maybe because YOU became a vegan for moral and ethical reasons,others may have come to it from other means and for other reasons,and allow those who are NOT vegan to come to their own conclusions and make their own choices?

and maybe not be so judgey mcjudgerface if they choose differently than you?

look man,we all do something that gives us the "feel goods".

some recycle obsessively,even though there is little evidence that actually makes a difference.

others drive a hybrid and feel that is their contribution,even though it is actually worse.

some will only buy organic and/or shop locally.(thats me btw)
and even though this brings some coin to the local farmers,taken on a whole it is barely a blip against the monster that is wal mart.

i have friends who do beach clean up every year,even though it gets destroyed within a month.

so we all try to do something that fits our perceptions of the world and how we can make it a better place.

and yes..if we ALL got together we could make a massive change in the current dynamics,not only locally but globally.

so i get it mate..i really do.

i guess what i am suggesting at it's core is this:
stop acting like a newly converted jehovahs witness who just wants us all to hear about your new buddy jesus.

i also think i should share that my long time girlfriend is vegan.
not your judgey,self righteous,pretenscious type vegan..but a vegan.

and that girl can't cook worth a damn.
which means that cooking falls on ME.
do i still eat meat?
yep,but not that often and rarely..raaarely red meat.
and to my girls credit she never gives me shit,i may get the upturned nose but never actual verbal shit.

red curry anyone?

Answer #1: I don't know what makes you a douchebag. I don't think "speaking out against" anything makes someone a douchebag. Telling me I'm an addict, a murderer, a RAPIST because I live and eat the way mankind has since before we made pictograms on cave walls? That's douchey. Trying to make your point by quoting people is no more effective than any other religious nut standing on a soap box.

Answer#2: Anyone can make a point by using hyperbole and extreme cases. Would I get pissed off if someone was using human toddlers, locked in black rooms, as a food source? Please. You do realize the issue between my view on food, and your view on food, is a mere distinction between what you and I consider sentience?

I'm against corporate food production. Corporations have a long and rich history of fucking humans over, I can only guess what they do to animals. I am vehemently opposed to unnecessary pain and suffering in any creature. Except pedophiles, rapists, Republicans, and those guys who flip you the bird when THEY have cut YOU off. We can do medical testing on them, no problem.

I guess you just will never understand, I don't particularly disagree with the message, just the messenger.

You can be described as "holier than thou", your arguments come from your feelings of elitism, superiority. Showing us how misguided and base we are. It's the reason why theists will never listen to Dawkins or Hitchens. (Conversely why atheists don't listen to theists either, truth be told.) They talk down to them as if they were idiots. They might BE idiots, but no one ever likes being called one.

You attack us and wonder why we get pissed off. THAT'S why you're a douchebag.

Elie Wiesel was talking about you, not us. We don't go around attacking vegans. We only react to their attacks on us. You are the oppressor here, the tormentor. I was fine before you started the name calling.

“Humans — who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals — have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and 'animals' is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them — without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us.”- Carl Sagan/Dr. Ann Druyan

I actually did this as my high school chemistry project. I used 70% rubbing alcohol, 90% rubbing alcohol, and pure ether (don't try that at home, kids). You can get a number of different effects, only some of which were seen here.

As I recall, there were 5 distinct effects I noticed.
First, and most exciting, the jet. This was just a 2-6 foot jet of flame out the top, I surmised it was caused by low oxygen inside the glass making for a poor partial burn inside until the pressure pushes out enough unburnt vapor to burn outside. Depending on the fuel (both vapor level and fuel type), this could last up to 10 seconds.
There's a 'neck burn', where the flame hovers just inside the neck and just burns there, apparently in equilibrium, like an oil lamp.
There's the fire ball, which is just as it sounds, a round ball of fire, usually hovering in the top 1/3 of the bottle, sometimes bouncing up and down, but always centered.
There's the flash, where the entire interior flashes repeatedly, as seen in this video. This can end much more violently than it did here, 'pinging' the bottle loudly as the flashes get more powerful. When this happened with ether, we stopped, afraid we were making a glass bomb surrounded by high school kids.
Finally was the fire plane, also seen in this video, which can ascend, descend, or hover in place. This was my favorite effect, especially when it hovered and lasted up to 30 seconds long.

Good times, good times....FIRE GOOD.

Oblivious to the issue? Or just "there is no issue"?

The exclusion of an Asian actor from auditioning for Death Note strikes me as wrong, but if the director is going for a certain aesthetic, it's hardly racial discrimination.

But irt GITS, Johanssen fits the aesthetic. Most of those asked noted that she resembled anime characters ergo it's fine. Seems to me that the furor is a bunch of white people deciding that because something was made in Japan, that it must be interpreted as "Japanese actors only", when even the Japanese see anime as apart from their own racial distinctiveness...

If the culture that produced the original IP doesn't have a problem with non-Japanese actors playing the role, isn't it a tad presumptuous for white people to get offended about it? \= )

Bit of a storm in a teacup really.

Let's maybe make a distinction here though when two kids attend the same elementary school, and were good friends that still remember each other years later as adults. When one has made it up to being a judge and the other has messed up and is headed to jail, maybe lets not automatically chalk that up to the color of their skin, no?

I get the distinct impression reading about this, that we are JUST scratching the surface. When they say its a 'glimpse' into how this works, it really is just that.

I'm all for treatment and prevention, both for this and other disorders that can become antisocial. Even psychopathy is a likely caused by a distinct physical difference in the brain.

Though your comment made me think of how the legal definition of insanity makes it hard for us to have a rational, consistent and humane approach to criminal justice. The idea is that the insane are not responsible for their actions, and so they should not be subject to punishment, but treatment. But none of us are responsible for our own thoughts or actions. The more understanding and empathetic standard of treatment that we apply to the "insane" should be how we treat everyone.

To be fair, the secondary definition of "entity" is :'being or existence, especially when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained: '...a fetus is absolutely not distinct, independent, or self contained, and so is not an entity, living or otherwise.
Also in his next paragraph he said "no independent living being", to me strongly implying it was the independent part of the definition he was disputing, not the 'living' part.

I have often wondered how the party of 'personal responsibility' can even consider forcing one person to physically support another 'person'* against their will. EDIT: It's also like granting instant squatters rights inside another person!

*I say "person" because they claim it is one, not because I'm conceding it's a person. I think it's not a "person" until it's lungs are full of air, people don't breathe fluid, and not an "entity" until the umbilical cord is cut. I could even support non-human status for a full year after birth like the ancient Greeks allegedly did, but I know that's WAY over most people's line. ;-)

One point...from what I saw, Bernie DIDN'T question Hillary's credentials as a progressive, he was questioned ABOUT Hillary's credentials, and he answered the question based on her own record/statements. In no way is that unfair or unseemly, indeed it's the proper way to delineate the distinctions between the two candidates.

I think we've seen now a few times that Hillary changed a view and a vote in favor of those who gave her large 'donations'. She can claim all she wants that it wasn't because of the huge sums of money she's been given, but she won't be convincing anyone of that who's not already firmly on her side.

It's really a crying shame that the fix is clearly in and, if the 'leaders' of the Democratic party have anything to do with it (and make no mistake, they do have control), Hillary will be the nominee, primary voters be damned. Sadly, that likely leaves us with President Trump, as polls show them in a dead heat (Clinton and Trump) but Trump's support is growing and Clinton's is shrinking.

#feeltheburnfromthefingersinthebootyassbitch

There's the rub.
'IF their content and ideas were distinctive enough'....they are clearly not, as both existed and were well known long before they came along.