First, to be clear, the T 800 ballsack isn't artificial. It is 100% real human tissue with sweat glands and hair. Unless T 800 have manscaping capabilities. Not sure about their programming concerning this. However, an argument could be made that the sack comes without marbles. I'm not clear to what extent interior organs are required and provided for insuring appropriate operation conditions. I'd have to refer you to the documentation.
Second, why in drag? Is that a certain preference you have or just a necessity to maintain the required amount of eroticism of your fantasy? While I have to inform you I'm a cis hetero male, I do not feel threatened by ideas of genderqueerness or homosexual actions. Feel free to fantasize about me and Arnold Schwarzenegger to your heart's content. The mind is free to make imaginary world's your oyster.
“The mind is endless. You put me in a dark solitary cell, and to you that's the end, to me it's the beginning, it's the universe in there, there's a world in there, and I'm free.”
Charles Manson

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.

It follows exactly. We are accountable for the things we do and for the things we would do if circumstance allowed.

Were I to tell you I was, say, pro-choice, you would be in a strong position to guess at my attitude toward a particular ethical question. If you then learned that I'd had no abortions personally, would you therefore label me a pro-lifer in spite of my stated position?

Well then, what if I tell you about an infamous tyrant of my acquaintance, a monster who committed every crime against humanity he had the means to commit, and whom I believe to be the very best person who ever lived. I tell you I intend to follow the shining example of this nightmare, shall we say religiously, for the rest of my life. Do you really presume to claim that no negative inference can be drawn about my character whatsoever? What guess would you make about my propensity for insane, vicious murder?

I have yet to have an abortion, it might be said largely in consequence of my lacking certain procedural necessities. Yet I remain pro-choice. The majority of muslims in civilised countries, the minority in muslim countries, have committed no great atrocities. Yet they remain muslim.

@transmorpher

It's a little difficult to 'debate' your comment, because the points that you address to me are numbered but don't reference to specific parts of my post. That's probably my fault as i was releasing frustration haphazardly and sarcastically, and that sarcasm wasn't aimed at you. All i can do is try and sum up whether i think we agree or disagree overall.

Essentially everything is a question of 'taste', even for you. There's no escaping our nature, most of us don't drink our own piss, many of us won't swallow our own blood, almost all of us have a flavour that we can't abide because we were fed it as a child. So yes, our decisions are defined by taste. But taste is decided by the food that is available to people, within reasonable distance of their house, at a price they find affordable according to the society around them, from a range of food that is decided by society around them. Your average person does not have the luxury to walk around a high street supermarket selecting the most humane and delicious foods. People get what they can afford, what they understand, what they can prepare and what is available. Our ancestors ate chicken because of necessity of their own kind, their children are exposed to chicken through no fault of their own, fast forward a few generations, and thus chicken becomes an affordable, accessible staple. Can we reach a compromise here? It may not be necessary for chickens to die to feed the human race, but it may be necessary for some people to eat chicken today because of their particular life.

I don't like the use of the phrase 'if i can do it, i know anyone can'. I think it's a mistake to deal in certainties, especially pertaining to lifestyles that you can't possibly know about without having lived them. Are you one of the many homeless people accepting chicken soup from a stranger because it's nourishing, cheap and easy for a stranger to buy, and keeps you warm on the streets? Are you a single mother with coeliac disease, a grumpy teenager and picky toddler who has 20 minutes to get to the supermarket and get something cooking? Or one of the millions using foodbanks in the UK (to our shame) now? I don't think you're willfully turning a blind eye to those people, i'm not tugging heart strings to do you a disservice. Maybe you're just fortunate you not only have the choice, but you have such choice that you can't imagine a life without it. I won't budge an inch on this one, you can't know what people have to do, and we have to accept life is not ideal.

And within that idealism and choice problem we can include illnesses that once again in IDEAL situations could survive without dead animals, nevertheless find it necessary to eat what they can identify and feel safe with.

Yes, those damn gluten hipsters drive me round the bend but only because they make people think that a LITTLE gluten is ok, it makes people take the problem less seriously (see Tumblr feminism... JOKE).

I agree that we must look at what action we can take now - and that is why i keep reminding you that we are not in an ideal world. If the veganism argument is to succeed then you must suggest a reasonable pathway to go from how we are now to whatever situation you would prefer. My "ideal farm" description was just me demonstrating the problem - that you need to show us your blueprint for how we start again without killing animals and feeding everyone we have.

And on that subject, your suggestions need to be backed by real research, otherwise you don't have any real plan. "It's fair to say there is very little risk" is a nice bit of illustrative language but it is not backed by any fact or figure and so i'm compelled to do my Penn and Teller impression and call bullshit. As of right now, the life expectancy of humans is better than it has ever been. It is up to you to prove that changing the diet of 7 billion people will result in neutrality or improvement of health and longevity. That proof must come in the form of large statistical analyses and thorough science. I don't want to sound like i'm being a dick, but any time you state something like that as a fact or with certainty, it needs to be backed up by something. I'm not nit picking and asking for common knowledge to have a citation, but things like this do:

-- 70% of farmland claim
-- 'fair to say very little risk' claim
-- meat gives you cancer claim - i accept it may have a carcinogenic effect but i'll remind you so does breathing, joss-sticks, broccoli, apples and water
-- 'the impact to the planet would be immense' claim - in what way, and what would be the downsides in terms of economy, productivity, health, animal welfare (where are all the animals going to be sent to retire as of day 1?)
-- etc. etc.

Oh, and a cow might get its protein from plants, but it walks around a field all day eating grass, chewing the cud and having sloppy shits with 4 stomachs and enzymes that i don't have................. I'm a bit puzzled by this one... I probably can't survive on what an alligator or a goldfish eats, but i can survive on parts of an alligator or fish. I can't eat enough krill in a day to keep me going, but i can let a whale do it for me...?

Then I misunderstood, I thought you were saying no one on the planet HAS to eat meat by necessity and likely never will, so I pointed out two large groups that historically have and do eat ONLY meat.
I nit pick because when people make public blanket statements that are false, they need to be corrected.

@ahimsa

seriously?
quoting to rebutt an obvious sarcastic comment?
is it that hard to even attempt to be even a tad original?
do you REALLY think i am promoting actual violence?
really?
and you respond with a level of pretentious twattery that you should be ashamed of.

are you even remotely aware you literally made my point on how some vegans lack the basic self-awareness to realize they are being massive hypocrites and tools?

you trot out those tired,and boring,self-effacing morality/ethics tropes as if they were written on mount sinai,and then have the audacity to not even own your own egocentric bullshit.

jesus..vegans are such intolerable pussies.

because YOUR vegan philosophy is egocentricism on narcissistic steroids,and you lack the basic self-awareness to even have the skills to acknowledge that you are literally smelling your own farts,and calling it wisdom.

there is another vegan on this site that i really wish would put his two cents in,because he at least is aware of the hypocrisy and is an absolute delight to engage with.

but YOU...
self-awareness may be too tall an order it seems.
as you rant and rail against the inhumanity and suffering of the agri-animal on a fucking machine that 10 yr olds assembled to put together in a country where they dont even have the most basic of necessities met.

sitting at a desk dressed in clothes that ANOTHER 8 yr old sewed together,working 18 hr days at 23 cents an hr and is beaten if she slacks,is late..or complains.

the list of human oppression,slave labor and human trafficking that YOU benefit from is legion,and your lack of your own hubris,privilege and hypocrisy is,quite frankly,offensive.

so you can sit there in your own little smug fart cloud and self-righteously condemn the rest of us for choosing to enjoy bacon and convince yourself of your own superior morality and purity of ethics,but the reality is this:

you don't give two fucks.
you are an over-privileged,over indulged little shit and is no better nor worse than the rest of who travel through this life..making our own choices and being responsible for them.

the ONLY thing you truly care about is your little habitat and how others behavior affects your tiny,precious little world.so you go ahead an be a vegan for "moral" and "ethical" reasons,because it gives you the "feel goods".

and i say this with all humanity and honesty:
if you are vegan for moral and ethical reasons,then good for you mate.you made a conscious choice and have stuck to it.bravo my friend.

but don't try to push your own little inane philosophy on the rest of us.we may be assholes for eating meat,but at least we are not hypocritical,contradictory assholes.

now if you want to discuss the benefits of a vegan diet.
great...i am down.
if you wish to share why being a vegan for YOU is a philosophy that works for YOU and is a choice YOU made...then great.i love understanding why people chose to do what they do.

but if you keep attempting to make this purely a morality and ethical dilemma,while ignoring YOUR own philosophical and moral inconsistencies.

well..then we have nothing more to speak about.
enjoy the smell of your own farts.

/cockpunched

Wow. You really are speaking with authority on a subject you are ignorant about, aren't you? Look up Masai, or Inuit. Both survive on a meat only (or almost only) diet out of necessity. So much for "nobody on this planet is currently in that situation, probably never will" [be].

You are not superior. You are narcissistic. It seems that's a side effect of being vegan...you ALL have this false sense of superiority. That alone is enough reason to keep eating meat.

When people have no sense of humor about their own ideals, it's proof positive that they are insecure in them.

Vegans are not diverse when it comes to doing their little superior dance. They all do it, then all go pat themselves on the back for being a vegan douche to some 'evil carnivore' (by which they mean omnivore).

BTW, chimps are OMNIVORE, not carnivore....you know, that THIRD category of eaters that nearly all animals fall into, but which vegans choose to ignore.

BS, vegans are like ex addicts, always trying to make their bean curd taste and feel like meat. They fail miserably, but they continue to try and try....because meat tastes good and they miss it. You find the THOUGHT of meat revolting, but you still LOVE the taste.

Well, since most sci-fi says the invaders are coming for our water, they start from a huge mistake. If aliens wanted water, they would certainly harvest the rings of Saturn first...they're nearly pure water, they're already in space, and there's no violent species to eradicate before you can have them.

That said, I think any galactic travelers would have to be planetary parasites to exist. With inter system travel taking tens-thousands of years, replenishing ship stores at every opportunity would be a necessity.

What insulting ignorance you display with that first statement.
Let's discuss the bay area, where a studio apartment might cost you $1500 a month + utilities. There, even at $15 an hour, you are working 2 1/2 weeks just to put a roof over your head, then there's utilities, food, gas and insurance because you can't live where you work and don't have 4 hours a day to take public transportation, medical expenses, well, you're already FAR over what you make, and living like a monk. Now think about trying to raise a family of 4, even with 2 incomes it can't be done on $15 an hour...it really is an unwinnable struggle even if both parents have 2 full time jobs each.

You make the typical mistake of thinking that minimum wage jobs are all held by people who don't even really need jobs. That's simply 100% wrong. Most are held by adults that can not support themselves, much less have a family on $15 an hour. The amount of minimum wage jobs held by teenagers is only 20%...and that includes those not living at home. The group you describe as the norm is likely far less than 10% of the minimum wage work force.
http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/pages/demographics
Also, you ignore the idea that teens that work and live at home should be able to save money to move out, or for school...but even living at home isn't free (just cheaper, usually) and paying them a wage that leaves nothing for the bank means they can NEVER move out and are only going backwards financially. That's a terrible financial trap to design for our youth, and is a direct cause of people turning to crime as a last resort. EDIT:You also ignore the fact that many if not most teens living at home and working work to support the family, not for their own money, and their income is imperative in keeping the family financially viable.

Yes, it wasn't 'that long ago' that $15 an hour was a decent wage...but it was even more recent when <$.79 gas was the norm, or even high, $.99 cigarettes were expensive, $200 a month rent was average or even high, $25 a month water bill was considered excessive, milk was <$1 a gallon at 7/11, health insurance was well under $100 per month (often <$50 per month)....etc. Inflation has raised the price of most 'necessities' by at least a factor of 5 in the last 25 years, but not wages. Luxury items are just out of the picture for those living on minimum wage, so there's no point mentioning their costs.
Those making $15 an hour ARE ALREADY AT THE BOTTOM TODAY. [ EDIT: As I mentioned above, anyone making less than $22 an hour is making less (in purchase power) than minimum wage as it was originally set, they are all at the 'bottom'.] Yes, they should all get a 'boost' as well if life was fair. Clearly it's not, so it's good to prioritize and focus on those below the bottom first, then work upwards. It's also imperative to work from the top down at the same time, as the outrageous compensation at the top is a big part of how/why companies pay those at the bottom so poorly and claim it's all they can afford. If the CEOs keep taking 95% of the profits, the employees can never be paid 'fairly' or even humanely.

"Many people insist that eating animals is “natural” — and therefore morally neutral — because other animals eat animals. But it’s important to realize that, with a few exceptions, when humans kill other animals for food, we’re not doing what animals do in nature. Humans have no biological need to consume meat or any animal products. When animals kill other animals for food, they do as they must, in order to survive; they have no choice in the matter. Many humans, on the other hand, do have a choice, and when people with access to plant-based foods choose to continue eating animals anyway — simply because they like the taste — they are harming animals not from necessity, but for pleasure. Yet harming animals for pleasure goes against core values we hold in common — which is why, for example, we oppose practices like dog fighting on principle. It can’t be wrong to harm animals for pleasure in one instance, but not the other.

Furthermore, it makes no sense to selectively model our behavior around other animals. Do we fornicate or copulate in public like other animals do? No. Do we kill our newborn children based on the fact that certain animals have done so under certain circumstances? Of course not. Yet when it is convenient for our argument, we claim that eating animals is normal and natural because a very small percentage of animals do so. Regardless of what other animals do, if you are not vegan, you are paying someone to needlessly harm animals in a way that would traumatize you to even witness."

"Many people insist that eating animals is “natural” — and therefore morally neutral — because other animals eat animals. But it’s important to realize that, with a few exceptions, when humans kill other animals for food, we’re not doing what animals do in nature. Humans have no biological need to consume meat or any animal products. When animals kill other animals for food, they do as they must, in order to survive; they have no choice in the matter. Many humans, on the other hand, do have a choice, and when people with access to plant-based foods choose to continue eating animals anyway — simply because they like the taste — they are harming animals not from necessity, but for pleasure. Yet harming animals for pleasure goes against core values we hold in common — which is why, for example, we oppose practices like dog fighting on principle. It can’t be wrong to harm animals for pleasure in one instance, but not the other.

Furthermore, it makes no sense to selectively model our behavior around other animals. Do we fornicate or copulate in public like other animals do? No. Do we kill our newborn children based on the fact that certain animals have done so under certain circumstances? Of course not. Yet when it is convenient for our argument, we claim that eating animals is normal and natural because a very small percentage of animals do so. Regardless of what other animals do, if you are not vegan, you are paying someone to needlessly harm animals in a way that would traumatize you to even witness."

Dog fighting does not exist, and has not existed since WW1.

Even in WW2, planes attacked in passes. They start up high, fly down to pick up speed, attack and keep flying so that the enemy cannot catch them.

As that is happening, another pair of planes is already on it's way to make another pass.

Planes do not chase each other dodging around like X-wings and Tie Fighters. Because as soon as you do that their wingman shoots you down.

TopGun trains pilots in BFM and team work skills, not so much dog fighting. While one v one dog-fighting is part of learning good team work skills and becoming familiar with different scenarios, it isn't the focus.

In Vietnam, the missiles and radars were unreliable and missile had to be fired from a fairly close range. That hasn't been the case for some 30 years now, with missiles getting better all of the time with some insane ranges upwards of 80 miles. The plane is becoming more of a launch platform for missiles than anything else. That's why every fighter plane after the F-4 was designed that way primarily. The worlds best fighter is still the F-15 which has a massive radar and the best missiles. And less maneuverability than the F-16. Because they know dog fighting does not happen.



The scenario you mentioned where the planes are flying close together is not realistic - close in air to air combat is 100 miles.

Especially if the enemy plane has better maneuverability(which all Russian planes do already do anyway, apart from the F-16 if lightly loaded).
Pilots know very well the strengths of their planes, they would never put them in a position like that. They would be pinging each other to make their presence known (if a show of force was the desired effect) from over 100 miles away.


None of this makes the F-35 a good plane by any means. But I just don't agree with the reasoning in the comments here and in the media.

For example people keep mentioning the "Jack of all trades" issue. But they ignore the fact that ALL fighter planes built over the last 40 years have been turned into jack of all trades through necessity. Yet nobody criticizes them for it.

I mostly fly the same simulators as the US national guard does. So I'm hoping that it's accurate. But more than that I read a lot of books written by pilots about air to air and air to ground engagements. Which makes me more knowledgeable than 99.99% of the journalists reporting on the F-35. You'll notice that most aviation specific sites don't tend to bag out the F-35 because have a much better idea of how air combat works than the regular media sites.

EDIT: I was not aware they were ignoring failed tests. That's pretty worrying. Do you have more info on it I can read about?

The self righteousness of your post almost made me feel sick. Vegetarianism SHOULD be a stepping stone to veganism? It SHOULD be whatever the hell you want it to be - for example a temporary situation for when you SHOULD return to eating meat.

Now i'm not going to do what you did and reel off the standard list of reasons why veganism is bad for you, they are well documented and discussed but we all know that it is very possible to have a varied and sufficient diet regardless of what you limit yourself to.

As for your comment about milk, i did a quick bit of research - most of the sources i can find saying that milk causes calcium to be ejected out of the body sourced from the bones and/or cause osteoporosis are new age blog style websites written by a vegan who - like you - clearly has some serious agenda.

As for decent sources, here is what i found:
- Several scientific papers noting that though some observational studies have shown more alkali diets being beneficial to bone health in pre- and post- menopausal women, it has yet to be proven in any definitive clinical trial
http://osteoporosis.org.za/general/downloads/dairy.pdf
(and other sources, but not as scientific)

- The Harvard School of Public Health state that it is not clear what the best source of calcium is for bone health. However the consumption of dairy products has more beneficial effects than just bone health - protection against colon cancer for example, also other vitamins, proteins and minerals that are present.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/calcium-full-story/#calcium-from-milk

Job losses may seem irrelevant to you, but i suggest that's because you have a very very tenuous grasp on the farming profession and don't rely on it for your income. No, you can't simply replace any and all dairy farms/farmers and workers with plant-based farming alternatives. There are a huge number of reasons for this which only a farmer would be able to tell us in detail, but for example - the equipment is different and requires a huge investment (both for acquisition and storage and transport and so on), the land and buildings are not necessarily interchangeable, the skills and knowledge are often built up since childhood and are not instantly transferable, the connections within the industry for logistics and business dealings are different. These are just a few that i thought up.

Yes, some animals are poorly treated in the farming industry and it makes me very sad to think of. However if you are careful and attentive you can ensure that you do not consume any products that were unfairly treated. This is like saying that a minority of clothes sold in shops are made in sweatshops by exploited child labour, therefore we should ban all clothes from the planet.

I could go on and on and on, and even begin my own dissertation on how "everyone going vegan" would be detrimental to overall public health and prosperity; if we grow more crops, more animals must be killed to ensure the crop is healthy and full.. we are not able to process celulose because we evolved.. there are things you can't get from plants that your body needs.. etc. But this comment is already very long, and i think i've broken the backbone of your argument already.

I will mention though that your crusade could end up being very damaging to the health of people who have auto immune diseases and/or allergies that rely on meat to have a balanced and varied diet. I recently discovered that i have coeliac disease (auto immune response to gluten) and secondary lactose intolerance, and i really wish i could explain to you just how difficult it is to avoid gluten containing grains and lactose.

For you it is a choice to not eat anything that comes from animals, for me it is a necessity that i have to avoid gluten and lactose otherwise i get debilitating pain within half an hour. If i did not have access to meat and eggs, there would be very little that i could eat. Wheat is added to almost everything, or almost everything is made in the same vicinity as wheat products resulting in cross contamination. Meat and eggs are sometimes the ONLY thing that i can be sure are safe to eat, and yet some self righteous do-gooder like yourself sits there on a high horse telling me how terrible it is that i inevitably, medically do what our ancestors have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years of human prosperity and ascendance.

If you'd had a bit more of an open mind when you wrote that comment, if i hadn't found out i have these medical conditions, if you'd said things in a debatable way, presented your sources (you provide none), offered it up for discussion rather than a commandment written on a stone tablet, then i probably wouldn't have replied like this. But when i'm forced into doing something and an interfering busybody strolls along and shrieks "oooooooooh you shouldn't be doing that!!!" it really does wind me up.

You're right, they often get either just the flavor or just the texture, but not often both at the same when it comes to mock foods. Although it seems like every other week a new company is coming up with products that get closer and closer to real thing. Gardein "chicken" tenders for example. I actually find they taste better than the real ones(yeah I didn't think it was possible for chicken to taste any better either!) And hey no cholesterol

I don't see it as a sacrifice, not when I'm the one reaping all of the benefits. The knowledge that I haven't doomed a sweet piggy like the one in the video to stand in a 2x3 foot cage until it collapses is more satisfying than the flavor of the best bacon . Not to mention health benefits, environmental (and some asshat farmer gets less money too is pretty satisfying too haha)

Lions in a cage most certainly wouldn't eat you. They would attack you and kill you out of fear and protection of their territory, perhaps even out of the fun of it, being feline. Assuming they were well fed of course which most animals in captivity are. But they would not bother wasting the energy to eat you when they are fed much tastier and healthier food.
There are also plenty of documented cases were a lions maternal instincts take over and they protect an infant animal. such as this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRUXU172vGg (there is a similar few where leopards save monkeys by returning them to trees etc)
It goes to show that even carnivores with strong killer instincts are able to see compassion, and that they only kill out of necessity to survive. When survival isn't factor anymore the rules are completely different.

Stereotypes go best with a grain of salt.
Jokes require a lack of seriousness.

And feeling a necessity to apologise after being referenced as "polite" is Canadian.

PS: this Aussie liked the concept presented as humor, regardless of accuracy and northern comforts