Oh no, I'm not feeling guilt or shame, but thanks for the concern. ;-)

I'm saying that inflicting guilt and shame are the obvious intents of your posts, even if not intentionally. You are trying to 'educate' people so they know to feel guilty or ashamed of how they live/eat, in the hope that that guilt/shame will get them to stop eating meat.
I think (I hope) that people who've never thought about the fact that meat is an animal are few and far between, and that most people make an informed choice. I've gone farther in that sense than most since my family raised many types of meat, humanely, and even butchered our own when I was young, but I give people the benefit of a doubt that they aren't just eating meat and not connecting it with an animal. I'm sure a few are, but I think not many.

I find it insulting to imply that people haven't thought it through...but I know I'm a weirdo so perhaps I'm the only one insulted and I should just shut up. ;-)

Why DOES the worm talk like a lamb? ;-)

Even if the lamb has the best treatment in the world, to eat it, it has to be killed as an infant, it's only months old.

I'm not blaming anyone, I was just as oblivious as anyone else to all of this for most of my life, and that's why I like to point it out these days, and perhaps help someone just like the younger me to identify the inconsistencies in the thought (or lack of thought) process. It takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to see the beauty of a young deer and feel obligated to save her life one minute, and next minute eat something just as young and precious without even a single neuron firing about what had to happen to the lamb in order for it to end up on a plate.

People will stop for ducks crossing a round, and then go through a fried chicken drive through. People will spend 1/2 their lunch break admiring pictures of kittens, but eat a lamb or veal (and when you compare a lamb to a kitten they look very similar and just as cute).

If that younger me was reading this, I know I'd be getting angry and frustrated at this comment, ready to throw a barrage of counter arguments such as "lions eat animals". But that is only a good thing, that frustration, anger and annoyance is the logical side your brain fighting tradition and habit side. It's a good thing if it's causing you frustration, because it means you do have a logical side at least and even perhaps on a subconscious level the brain is trying to work out the inconsistencies


And of course sheep are very much victims of factory farming these day : http://www.animalsaustralia.org/media/press_releases.php?release=150

Actually Lamb would be a great choice because they aren't factory farmed so they most likely were treated well and were happy.

Saves deer, then goes home to eat a lamb....


Edit: Saving the deer is a really nice thing to do, and it shows that most people genuinely care for animals, but are completely unaware that they're causing an animal holocaust at the dinner table. Each time they eat, they've killed by proxy a animal just as innocent as that deer. Especially when it comes to lamb and veal, they are generally only months old.

Just goes to show, out of sight, out of mind I guess.

I love the far side and I just came across this old thread but My take on this cartoon is it is a serial killer like "Silence of the lambs " he has human arms in the bowl and his lamp shades look like skin shades, and furniture hand made. Normal day for a psychopath. That's my take, I'm usually not such s ghoul

"Our corporate money worshippers often attend services at churches and synagogues. But they worship during the workweek at the altar of money, and we, the 99 percent, have become their sacrificial lambs. Like a drug addict looking for a fix they spend their lives rigging the system in their never-ending quest for greater and greater wealth- the rest of us be damned."

Source: http://www.theunion.com/opinion/19681951-113/jeff-vogel-the-most-dangerous-religion-of-all

Perhaps SOME farmers kill their animals like this in the US, but certainly not all. My family doesn't, and we've raised cattle, goats, lambs, chickens, turkeys, etc. We shoot the large animals first and knock out the smaller ones....and have done so ourselves for over 40 years, and I have been involved numerous times. People who kill like in this video are uncaring animal abusers. People who condone it are condoning animal abuse.

When you make an assumption you've made an ass out of you and Mption....and what did Mption do to deserve that?

This was not "slashing the carotid artery", this was a near decapitation. Slashing the jugulars can be done with a small knife, it doesn't require a chainsaw. You only need to make 2 small puncture cuts, not a 2-3foot long slice 1/2 decapitating the animal but leaving it conscious. They're doing it wrong.

Anything going through the camel's brain will kill it, they don't need a gun to not abuse this poor animal to death, although it certainly makes it easier on everyone.

The cop was justified... Did it go too far- yep but the student caused this to happen.


Looks justified when intellectually competent persons analyze this.


Ignorant people ( well lest face it we are talking about the left) will see something different and the Black lives matter with Al Sharpton will be showing up soon. This will spur on the Anti cop / Cop killing is good propaganda causing a more downward spiral of society.



Justified !

Just like the cop that justifiably killed Michael Brown of Ferguson this cop will also loose job as a sacrificial lamb for the Left.

Congratulations. You've managed to capture the entire diversity of the US by visiting several times and not get shot or had a gun pointed at you. This is like forming an opinion about whether sharks will bite humans after you've laid on the beach once or twice and have never been bitten. Searching for some relevance here... and ... nope, none.

Agreed, if your gun is in a traditional safe, it's not much good when the burglars or home invasion psychos kick in your front door at 2 a.m. Jim Jeffries is indeed a funny guy, but like many who don't understand what "for protection" means to some homeowners here in the US, you might want to cite a bit more credible source or at least educate yourself.

Thanks to biometric safes and locking devices, it is quite easy to have a secured gun in a safe at arms reach, accessible to only one person, that can be unsecured, ready to fire in about 4 seconds. I know this to be true, because I have such a setup, and we practice what to do when the home alarm goes off just like we practice fire drills.

The distressing part is I absolutely hate having to be in such a situation. I'm no cowboy and this isn't the wild west, but when families around me are having their doors kicked in in the middle of the night by armed thugs, or having one or two fuckheads follow them up the driveway for an easy push-in robbery accompanied by beatings, shootings, molestation and sometimes killing, I decided that there would be no way I could live with myself if something tragic ever happened to my family at the hands of these nut jobs, knowing I might have been able to do something to stop it. And no, one can't relay on the local police to take care of these crimes. Around here, even with a top notch alarm system in the house that goes directly to dispatch, the cops usually arrive to clean up the blood and take statements, and almost never in time to stop the crime or catch the criminals.

Do you have house, car, fire or life insurance? Sure, but you hope you'll never have to use it. So, what's so unbelievable about a gun for protection? What do you suggest? You appear to think it's silly to state it's for protection... so does one simply relying on hope, faith or good luck in never having to witness your wife or child being duct taped to a chair while criminals rummage through your house, or having their head kicked in or bloodied on the end of a baseball bat?

Just a suggestions, but try to spend some time as an actual resident in a country before you pretend to understand it, consider yourself fortunate that you don't live in such a situation, and for fucks sake stop with the snide, morally superior judgement of those who do. If you can muster that, on a guess that you might be from NZ but really don't know, I'll stop telling everyone that Kiwi's really do fuck sheep, especially on National Lamb Day when it's a competition rather than just a hobby.

Have fun.

Sometime after the Jewish people rebuild their temple, a man will enter into it and claim to be God. This is what the bible refers to as the "abomination of desolation". Jesus said that when this happens, great tribulation will come upon the Earth, such as has never been before, nor ever shall be afterwards. The man is called the man of sin, and the Antichrist, who will rule the whole world.

There will be another man, described as having horns like those of a lamb, but he speaks like a dragon. He will perform great signs, even calling fire down from heaven in the sight of men, and he operates in the authority of the Antichrist, and will cause the whole world to worship him. This man is called the false prophet.

During this time, Christianity will be persecuted worldwide as the Antichrist tries to exterminate the church. The thousands of Christians being martyred in the middle east every year is just a foreshadowing of what is to come for Christians in the last days.

Revelation 1:17-18 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

This is the reaction of John, the beloved disciple, when he saw Jesus in His glory. He fell down at His feet as if he was dead. This is the reaction of the believer upon seeing God. The reaction of the unbeliever is going to be one
of great sorrow, and abject terror:

Matthew 24:30 Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory

Revelation 6:15-16 Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains;

And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

When we stand before God, everything will be in the open. There will be no secrets; you'll be exposed as the person you really are and not the person you present to other people.

What is in this video is all false bravado. No one can stand in the day of judgment except those whose sins are covered by the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus on the cross. He died for our sins, and was raised the third day so that we can be forgiven and have everlasting life. He took our place and took the punishment we deserve so that all who put their trust in Him as Lord and Savior will receive forgiveness for their sins, reconciliation to God, and adoption as Gods children. That is the only way anyone can stand before God in the day of the judgment.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 10:9 Because if you confess the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'kid, bed, jump' to 'kid, bed, jump, bambi, lamb' - edited by xxovercastxx

Needs one vote:

http://videosift.com/video/Blue-Rodeo-Bad-Timing

This one too, but it's blocked so I can't watch - http://videosift.com/video/Dirty-Jobs-Docking-and-Castrating-Lambs

My argument is sound, logically, and if it were unsound it would be very easy to point out what the flaw is. I'll elaborate further:

Occams razors states that the theory with the least number of assumptions balanced against its explanatory power should be preferred to an argument with more assumptions and less explanatory power. The question is how do we explain the apparent fine-tuning in the Universe, a "goldilocks zone" for life. Scientists propose the multiverse theory which explains the favorable conditions as just being lucky, in that there are innumerable Universes and we just happen to be in the one that is very favorable for life. The problem with the theory is manifold; one, that is no observable evidence for the theory, and no way to test the theory. Two, it raises more questions than it answers because the mechanism that generates all of the Universes is even more finely tuned than the Universe itself, how did it get there, etc. It simply pushes back the problem another step. Eventually you must get to the point where a miracle occurs..ie, something came from nothing, or an eternal something which is infinitely fine tuned. According to Occams razor, the theory of an eternal Creator of the Universe should be preferred over *multiple* unobserved universes, that the fine tuning we observe isn't just apparent, but actual.

When you ask, why did God not do it "sooner", you do realize that you are making a temporal reference point? The bible says God "began" to do something because we are temporal beings and we think in terms of beginnings and endings, but we have no idea what that looks like in eternity. If your problem is simply with something being eternal, then maybe you haven't thought about the consequences of there not being anything eternal. You have to ask yourself the question, why is there something rather than nothing? You are facing two absurdities in this case; either an infinite regress of causes, or something coming from nothing. There has to be something eternal otherwise you are left with positing logically impossible outcomes. So, if there is something eternal, and whatever it is must be infinitely fine-tuned, and it ultimately created this Universe, you might as well call it God because it already possesses many of His attributes. Whichever way you turn, you are facing the Almighty.

The bible tells us why God didn't need to create light first:

Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty is its temple, even the Lamb.
Revelation 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they might shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

You should ask yourself, why do you object to the possibility of a Creator? Are your arguments just excuses to cover up the plain facts that have already been revealed to you by God, and the expression of your desire not to be accountable to Him? Something to think about..