Oh the anger, the anger.

These movies are targeted toward children and also adults. Mostly children.

Children can and want to relate to the heros. Take Woody for example. The kids love Woody. They understand all of Woody's happy times and sad times. All his strengths and weaknesses. Woody is a lot like them. By design, the kids are Woody.

When Woody gets tortured, kids are very sensitive to that. Some kids more than others relate all to well. Those kids are the ones that these movies are reaching out to. The ones that see the horrors of dad beating mom. Spanking. Bullies at school. Handicapped children. On and on.

Because kids love Woody they know he understands their pain and fear. Woody has relatable problems and Woody is going to show them how to cope in deep ways that they can understand.

They understand Woody has great friends that can help him. And Woody would do anything to help his friends.

Sometimes if you look at something and see only bad, don't let anger get in the way of finding the good.

I found the sentiment appropriate for any douche that blocks charging stations intentionally, diesel truck or Honda Civic.
I say treat them like people parking in handicapped parking spots...maybe don't shoot them like in Florida, but I have no problem with someone removing the offenders by any means they see fit, with any damage done being the parker's responsibility. I also would have no problem if the valves were removed from at least two tires, forcing them to be towed to a tire shop afterwards.
Use your car to be a dick, don't whine when you lose it or find it damaged.

It's not mocking.
No collusion.
Collusion is not a crime.
Lock her up.
He's not a citizen.
I won't benefit from my tax plan.
Urrruuooo. Rooowooo wooourrroooowoooo. (Trump mocking a handicapped reporter)
I'm a self made man who only got a tiny loan from my father that I paid back.
My school is the best.
My charities are all above board and comply with all state and federal laws.
I don't know and have never met Ms Daniels, and I have no knowledge of a payoff.

....but I'm not mocking him, no, just repeating his answers to questions. I would never mock such a respected and respectful person like Trump.
It's called facts.
*facepalm.....you just can't help but make yourself look more moronic daily, can you? Do you let your daughters speak to and about adults in that tone? No? That's because it's bad to mock people, right?
Thanks for once again proving me right.

Understood, and I agree, it's never nice to be the loser, and is worse when you lose because you're forced to accept a handicap. (I mean the golf term)
I would guess that's how many minorities feel too....constantly handicapped.

@Diogenes

Thank you for your detailed answer. I do agree with you that context matters and that words are neither inherently good or bad by themselves. However, I think you’re looking at the situation from a more microscopic point of view as a simple joke between two people. I prefer to take a more macroscopic view of the situation. Allow me to explain.

Going back to my hypothetical example, it’s true that I didn't mean any harm when I used the term "retard" towards my brother. I think all people like to think of themselves as "good" people. For example, I would never in my life point at person with Down Syndrome and scream "Retard!" at the top of my lungs or attempt to belittle someone with an actual mental disability. The problem, however, is that by using the word in the way I did in the example I am tacitly--and quite publicly (remember this is happening in a parking lot)--endorsing the equating of people with mental disabilities to stupidity. I may be making a joke towards my brother but it isn’t just my brother that winds up being the butt of the joke.

Now maybe from your perspective, it’s just one person saying a joke. Look at the context, you might say. It’s a distasteful joke but no big deal, right? And I could agree with that if it was just some off-color joke limited to a single individual. Unfortunately, and I think we can both agree on this, the use of “retard” to mean “stupid” is a relatively common occurrence in American vernacular. You couple that with the stigma against mental illness and mental disability and I think it becomes fairly plain to see that on the macroscopic level (i.e. society) we have a problem: a group that is socially disadvantaged and historically discriminated against is even further marginalized by the language people use in their everyday lives. Now, if you don’t agree this is a problem, I’m afraid the conversation has to end here since the logical conclusion of such a stance is that people should be free to say whatever they want and be immune to criticism, damn the consequences.

But if you do agree it is a problem, how are we going to solve it? My take on the situation is that doing absolutely nothing when witnessing a situation like the one I've described is unlikely to improve society in any way. The status quo will be maintained if people are not confronted about their language use.

That being said, people often say things without fully comprehending the implications of what they are saying. They often talk the way they were raised and never once questioned whether what they were saying was actually harmful or not. I don’t think people should be pilloried for that, but in the event that they are unaware of how they are contributing to the discrimination and oppression of others they certainly need to be educated.

This necessarily entails confrontation, although that confrontation might be very low key. Continuing the example above, I think a good way for the woman in the example to “enlighten” me about my misguided use of the word “retard” would be something along the lines of this:

“Excuse me. I really wish you wouldn’t equate having a mental handicap with stupidity. My nephew has Down Syndrome and even though, yes, he can’t do everything that a person without an intellectual handicap can do he is most certainly not stupid.”

Now, all of that said, I see nothing wrong with publicly shaming those who clearly understand the implications of what they are saying and out of either stubbornness, a need for attention, or actual spite willfully continue to use language that is degrading or oppressive. A white person frequently using the N-word in public to describe black people, for instance, is a situation where I’d be completely fine with them getting verbally eviscerated. We don't always have to be polite, even when being politically correct.

As a final note, I want to make it clear that I believe in free speech in the sense that everyone should be free to say whatever they wish. However, as a caveat to that I also believe that free speech comes with the responsibility that people must own everything they say. If someone wishes to use offensive, degrading, or oppressive language that is their choice. Free speech in no way gives them a free pass from criticism of that choice, however.

I've been on planes that have 2 ramps and load/unload from both the front and the back. The boarding order is by seat row. It's pretty rare though.
To answer your question though - they paid a lot more for 1st or business-class ticket, and so their "priority" is they get to get on first and off first, rather than stand around in line. But every plane I've been on, they will board handicapped people, and families with small children first, even before 1st class passengers.

Scott Adams has always been a raging trashfire. Not surprised he's a Trump supporter, especially after his rant about how women are like "children and the mentally handicapped".

MRA Dilbert blog taking his actual quotes and putting them into Dilbert strips should really just replace his cartoon.

http://mradilbert.tumblr.com/

My understanding is that even though nobody will admit to their actual capabilities, it's fairly widely believed that stealth doesn't work anymore.

While the radar cross-section might be the size of a large bird, which is always a major bullet point in their marketing material, no large bird is flying in a straight line at 5k+ feet and 400 kts and it's easily within the the capabilities of modern processing to sort out all the large bird sized objects and find the one that's behaving in a very un-birdlike way.

Of course, I suppose it's always better in a war to be seen as little as possible, but newer projects like the F-22 and more specifically the F-35 are probably handicapped by being held to meeting the "stealthy" design requirement.

Later in the evening, Trump instructed his mob to "confiscate" a protester's coat and throw him outside in the 10F. weather.
Sounds to me like he's guilty of theft, assault, and incitement. If only there was a prosecutor who's not either a Trump fan or terrified to take him on.
These people are so dumb they don't see the terrible idea of electing a bully, and don't notice how he's turned against almost all those that supported him in the past.

Won't it be amazing if he's elected and at the inauguration says "wow, you people are just so incredibly stupid...I'm a democrat, have been my whole life and I never hid the fact, and you actually believed my idiotic, hateful republican character was for real. Losers."

EDIT: As a side note, has anyone else noticed the number of famous people the guy with the 'best memory in the world' can't remember being friends with? First it was the disabled reporter he knew personally and socialized with but 'didn't remember' although he mocked his handicap exactly, and more recently it's Samuel L Jackson he can't remember playing golf and having lunch with, as if anyone would forget that. So much for having the "best memory in the world", huh? Well, it was only about as true as everything else he says, so no surprise....except that some people still believe anything he says.

I think we've just about reached the "agree to disagree" point. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that the other person keeps any of the truth the other said in their mind and mull it over. Thanks for the chat.

I agree that inhumane is a silly word. "Inhumane" acts are often acts only perpetrated by humans.

I dislike the argument about the fact that farm animals would go extinct if we didn't keep systematically breeding and killing them. So what? Then let them go extinct. I personally think it's morally accetable to let an animal go extinct naturally -- especially if the alternative is to perpetually keep them un-extinct just to, essentially, torture them for our pleasure. I do, however, agree with your later comment that it would be a clusterfuck to figure out what to do with the ones that do currently exist. Easiest solution: keep eating them but don't breed them. Unfortunate human consequence: meat would become expensive. Also, during the time that we eat off the rest of them, those workers could train for another (hopefully) less miserable job. I can't believe many, regardless of how they rationalize it, can enjoy killing something before its time.

I'm fully aware of how the slave comparison is a bit off the edge (I even said so), but it's a hyperbole for the purpose of making a point: it is immoral to treat any animal to pain and suffering -- regardless of how you treat any other one of them. One mercy killing does not absolve you of another horrific one.

I am not saying that animals are not always treated poorly and without thought for their comfort. I am just saying that they are not allowed into the safe moral haven that handicapped humans are let into. If we mercy killed even one handicapped person, there would be an uproar that deafened the world. A mercy killing. Imagine if they did any of the (even "humane") things they do to animals to a handicapped person. It would be morally disallowed to an extreme degree. I don't know why animals don't get the same treatment.

Again, when you bring anything up about "evolution", I roll my eyes. We're humans with supposed free will. We're supposed to be above that, right?

If every vegan food you ate was inedible and made you sick than either your cook does not know how to cook, it was gluten-free, or there was something horribly wrong with the food. Fresh fruit? Beans? Peanut butter? Nuts? Berries? Greens? Carrots? B12 supplements? They made you sick? Something you ate was horribly wrong.

Your Olympic athlete statement is just factually incorrect. I would think you'd google that before stating something as fact.

And agaiun. "Evolution". Yeah, that happened already. Let's move on.

Stop making me feel bad about my cats! I already confessed guilt! :-P I actually do spend a ridiculous amount of money so that the food is better than just crap. I'm lucky enough to be wealthy enough to do it and I am extremely thankful for that. And! The amount of wealth that cat videos have garnered for advertisers is hardly unproductive.

And my partner and I are also on board about not having kids. She and I both think they're the worst thing you could ever do to the planet, animals, or people. Utopia got it right.

It's not inhumane ('humane' being another oxymoron, because it's meaning, and acting like a normal human, are opposites) because 1)they have a life at all, which they would not if not given the opportunity by my family 2) they have a place to live that life, which they would not if not given the use of the land and 3) nature also creates barriers to movement, so it's not unnatural for an animal to live it's entire lifespan in one place...perhaps for cattle, but not the rest. Farm animals are not humans, and those that have an aversion to being stationary have no place on a farm. You could say that not being nomadic is 'inhumane', as our natural state is not sedentary, but few would argue it's 'cruel'.
'Animals' are not humans, so are not slaves. That idea makes you sound ridiculous. See the South Park episode for a good example.
Stopping suffering is not within our scope.
There are many reasons why stopping meat eating is not reasonable, but the one you should be the most interested in is, if humans didn't eat cattle, they might be extinct. The same goes for many animals we eat, and if we didn't eat things like pork, the ecological disaster feral pigs create would be almost as bad as what humans do.
It would be easier and cheaper to change the conditions in the slums of India and elsewhere than it would be to eradicate the meat production (edit:and consumption) of the entire planet. What do the people do now that no longer have jobs? What do you do with all the animals that no longer have a 'use' and don't own property to move onto? How do you control their numbers so they don't destroy what's left of the planet?
Technically, yes, all humans are animals. Mentally handicapped humans are not TREATED 'like animals', by which you MEAN treated poorly and without thought for their comfort and well being, which in fact is NOT how most animals are treated in our first world society, no matter how much you think so. Factory farms are a different matter.
When dolphins take control, they can treat mentally handicapped dolphins better than average humans. It's not arbitrary to treat your own species as the most important, it's an evolutionary trait almost all species likely possess.
No, I can't eat an entire vegan diet. I've tried many vegan foods, and found them ALL inedible, some made me sick.

You made blanket statements about how ALL animals are treated, and how ALL meat is produced and then defended that blanket statement. I'm glad you now admit your mistake, I hope you can see it through and stop blanket blaming ALL meat eaters.

What other people eat is farther outside your influence than how they treat their children.

Without the calorie dense food that is 'meat', we would still be nomadic gatherers, if we could exist at all. Eating meat is one of the things that gave us the energy to evolve those 'higher brains' that can choose our actions and determine what's 'rational'.
You will never see a vegan Olympic athlete. (Edit: well, maybe in Olympic curling...)

Daesh has brought about change...a change that THEY see as positive. That's not a good argument.

Yes, you are a monster for supporting such unabashed, unproductive carnivores ;-)...and I would hazard a guess that you don't feed them only free range, gmo free turkey carcasses, so you sound worse than me, the unashamed meat eater that pays the extra money for proper animal treatment....not just for them but because it's healthier meat too.

I did my part for the animals and the planet by not having children. ;-) Too bad I'm such a minority that it won't make a whit of difference.

@newtboy: Just to be clear, I really appreciate your comments. It's nice to talk to an omnivore who doesn't just respond with "I'LL EAT TWICE AS MUCH MEAT AS YOU DO TO MAKE UP FOR YOUR VEGANISM!" I'm trying to be objective, and I appreciate your attempt as well.

That being said...

I respect the genuine care you give to your animals. I didn't know you or your family (or both) owned such a farm. It does sound like you do, truly, meet their needs as animals. However, (and I hate to bring out the really controversial stuff), I'm sure plenty of slave-owners treated their slaves with genuine humanity. But that doesn't excuse the categorical enslavement of other beings. Despite all care given to those animals, they are still not able to live their natural lives as animals on earth. I don't see why our subjugation, no matter how "humane", can be considered anything less than "inhumane".

Now, the comparison to "most children in the world" is a moot one. Yes, of course everywhere there are going to be worse things happening. But the point is that we are rational, (hopefully) decent, higher-order-understanding-of-the-universe beings. Humans seem to like to cherry-pick when their huge brain is an excuse for greatness, or ignored and "we're just animals after all". So, just because there is suffering outside the scope of our influence, we do all have the ability to stop eating meat. Pretty easily, in fact, since there are tons and tons and tons of other means to get all the nutrition we need (not to mention way, way healthier means).

The point is that we are completely and totally (especially as upper-middle class 1st-world citizens) capable of not eating meat this very moment. You can't, however, change the living conditions in the slums of India by yourself right now.

And explain to me how mentally handicapped humans are not animals. What is the distinction? They are both objectively less intelligent. If anything, animals are more capable of surviving on their own. What makes mentally handicapped people any more special than animals? Just because they're human? That seems arbitrary. True, they should be treated differently because they are different animals, but I mean why should one be treated to our moral consideration and one should not? What makes humans so damn special?

And that "sustenance" argument is really, really misguided. As said above, you can eat an entire vegan diet and be probably even more healthy than an omnivore. And animals are not minimally suffering. Yes, a very cherished, rare group, as your animals are, are "minimally suffering", but many, many, many, many more are being horribly abused for that sustenance that can be gained elsewhere (with suffering of its own, truly. I always hear the "well, there are people given slave wages to pick vegetables in California". But, you'll be eating those vegetables and fruits anyway. That's an entirely other battle that needs to be waged in other ways, not through lack of consumption).

My assumption was not that 100% of farmers treat their animals inhumanely. My assumption was that billions of animals are being treated inhumanely. And the way parents treat their children is a red herring. That's not my argument at all. And again, it's outside the realm of my influence.

And to counter your last argument... my same argument above follows for the "food chain/web" argument. Once and for all:

We are rational, amazing, smart, complex and powerful beings on this planet. We have it within our power (each of us) to not eat meat. This is "against nature". But so is basically OUR ENTIRE CIVILIZATION. What makes us truly different from animals is that exact ability. To step back and choose our actions. Are you saying humans not capable of choosing their actions -- those with so much in the 1st world countries? That we're all forced to, by nature, to eat meat? That is the cognitive dissonance I speak of. That we're so special because we are rational beings, but at the same time we must eat meat because we are not rational human beings.

This entire argument was not endorsed by PETA, because they're a bunch of assholes -- but despite being assholes one can't argue that they have brought about change. Change comes from all angles. Grassroots, insane radicals, scientists, humanitarians. They all try to bring change in different ways and succeed influencing different groups. PETA's brazenness is its power. Large corporations, like McDonald's, must respond to such a power. Despite being assholes. Both of them.

--

I want to end on a note of humility -- that I admit to having that same cognitive dissonance when it comes to animals. As a cat owner, I often visualize the mound of turkey carcasses that both of my lovable kittens live on top of. And they truly are carnivores in that they cannot find sustenance outside of meat. How do I rationalize all the turkey deaths (my cats only exclusively eat turkey for some goddamn reason) just so I can have my lovable pets? I can't. And it kills me. Not sure if I'll get cats after they die.

--

Thanks for reading. That was a lot.

I'm sorry, you're wrong.
Not all farms treat their animals badly. Our Turkeys, for instance, had the run of 300 acres, as did our cattle, goats, and sheep. The chickens had a pen for their own protection, but one larger than an average house with a large roost house they had free access to and from. The all had proper veterinary treatments. All in all, they had a much better life than many humans with the exception of the freedom to leave the property.
Most children in the world live in worse conditions than the animals at OUR farm, and have a MUCH more painful, lingering death. The only atrocity about the situation to me is that there are so damn many human children.
And mentally handicapped people aren't animals. It may be true, forcing naked, mentally handicapped (or non-mentally handicapped) children to be outside 24/7 might be considered abuse...doing so with an animal is not.
Beyond that, you are making HUGE mistaken assumptions to make your point, mistaken assumptions about 1) how 100% of farmers treat their animals and 2) how 100% of parents treat their children.

Ahh...and my sustenance is more important to me than another being's minimal suffering....that's how a food web works, and it doesn't make me an asshole, it makes me an omnivore.

Ugh. That tofucken looks disgusting. If they're going to try to sell veganism, they should try to not make the alternative look like a vomit box.

And they totally, totally overdid it with the cursing. After the 18th fuck, it's not funny anymore. It just makes you sound like a 15-year old who just learned how to cuss.

And, I'm sorry @newtboy, but even animals raised in 'humane' conditions are still treated horrendously by any human standard for any other sentient being. If we treated our mentally handicapped like even the best animals in the best farms, it'd be considered an atrocity.

Keep on cognitive dissonancing the shit out of that. Just admit to yourself that your enjoyment is more important than another being's suffering. Just admit it! And say, "I'm an asshole because my hunger is more important than suffering." proudly. Stop dancing around with that "humane slaughter" nonsense.

@bareboards2 it's not nice to make fun of mentally handicapped people.