You need to be specific, because your response can be taken two ways.
Are you talking about the measured Palestinian response to Israeli state sponsored rocket and heavy weapon fire on civilians?
I also can't imagine a country putting up with the treatment the Palestinians have endured since the invaders shoved them into the (constantly shrinking, and increasingly ruined) ghetto they live in today without retaliating, and considering the statistics on casualties, and the continuing expansion of Israel, it's clear who benefits from continuing the conflict and who suffers.
In the last 15 years, there's been little to no military action from the Palestinian government (the dumbfire rockets are basically home made model rockets) but there's been constant deadly action from Israel inside what's left of Palestine, and constant expansion by "settlers" (armed invaders with the military's backing).
Considering the history, nuking the entire region seems like a measured response to me...At least better than the status quo (if you're Palestinian). ;-)

EDIT: OK, I finally read the link, and see you were agreeing at least in part, with the above.

Well, I figure he was trying to point out that the only way vegans can exist is due to the society they live in. If everyone became vegan, society would collapse because of everyone slamming their phones into walls because they found out pizza has cheese in it.

How about tell them that if they live in a state that has yet to vote in the primary, they should not let the outrageous and unprecedented lies, irregularities, the clear 'fix' being perpetrated by the DNC, and attempts to dissuade or actually stop them from voting keep them from the polls on Primary day, and vote for Sanders, otherwise you are the one helping Trump become president. A Clinton candidacy means a Trump presidency, she's now well behind Trump in national polls, and his numbers are rising while hers are falling.
A vote for Clinton makes you responsible for Trump. A push for Clinton makes you responsible for Trump. A vote and support for Sanders makes you the only responsible party in the election. That simple.

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? ;-)

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. ;-)

Um...no
The Jews that invaded Palestine were illegitimate because they were illegal immigrants invading what was essentially a British 'colony'.
That has nothing to do with the fact that the USA didn't take as many as we might have. Those are two separate wrongs.
Palestine was not invaded because it was 'safer'..it was invaded because they wanted to own it. If it was about safety, they would have illegally immigrated to the multiple neighboring countries, not one single place all the way across Europe....kind of like the Syrian refugees are doing. If the Syrians all went to Belgium, installed their own laws and government supplanting the local Belgians', made the Belgians non-citizens, took their lands and properties, pushed them into one small corner ghetto, then complained about how bad the Belgians are...we would laugh at their faces as we blasted the shit out of them...why did we support Jews doing the EXACT same thing without a gun forcing (edit: most of) them out of their homes like the Syrians had?
Palestine did NOT have a SIZEABLE Jewish population, it was close to 5% before the invasion. It also wasn't closer by far than any other country in Europe. It only made perfect sense because their religious leaders told them to go there and 'take back their ancestral homeland'.

I never said those in the 40's were not that desperate, nor did I ever suggest we 'change history'. You need a reading comprehension refresher. I said those illegally invading in the 30's had little to flee (unless you are saying they had a time machine and KNEW what was coming). I also say those in the 40's after the war and all those coming after that had NOTHING to flee.

The difference being that the Arabs had been there for centuries, living peacefully with a small Jewish population as part of their 'country', yes, peacefully. It wasn't until the Brits ignored their own immigration laws and allowed the Jews to invade by the thousands that conflict broke out. Today, non Jews are not full citizens in the land that the Palestinians lived on for eons, and what's left of the native Palestinians are held in a concentration camp.

If things being bad where you live is a legitimate reason to take another country, all of Africa should be taking Europe today, along with much of Asia. In fact, we may as well forget countries if that's the metric, all countries treat some group poorly.

The invaders gained more land than they had at the outset (they had NONE at the outset, they lived in what had been British ruled Palestine, and was now reverting to Palestinian rule...) but the Jews wanted their own Jewish country and stole it from the people who had never had an army, using American weapons purchased mainly with American money (or given to them for free) while the Palestinians were barely supported by their neighbors, who had never been their allies. It was not "civil war' it was an invasion. Those fighting came from elsewhere to steal the land, it was not just the native Jews fighting, it was mostly invading Jews.

Yes, of course they refused. If Mexico took Texas, then the UN said "OK, it's yours, just don't take New Mexico", yet the Mexicans were already settling in New Mexico with their army protecting the settlements, I really don't think the US would accept the UN plan either. It was ridiculous and a plan based on stealing from Peter to pay Paul back for somethin Ringo stole. WTF?!?

Yes, that counts as 'stealing land' using overwhelming force, then fighting over it, then stealing MORE land, then subjugating and dehumanizing the locals, then stealing MORE land, and more land, and more land, and whining and crying that they're the victims.

The alliance of Arab nations that fought them was much SMALLER militarily, you know this.
When a 'smaller' invading force uses it's international contacts to become a violent racist bully, uses it's overwhelming force to steal land for decades, pushing the locals into the sea or concentration camps, kills tens of thousands and imprisons millions in horrendous conditions for decades and claims they want peace, yes, they need to return all the land they gained with their evil behavior or expect the leftovers of their genocide to strike back until one side is wiped out.

They were not a nation when they did this. They were an invading horde of Europeans trying to create a religious nation on someone else's land.

because they never see only of their shit applying to them, and everything is always someone else's fault.

Accidents happen with birth control (if you're even using it) but if you're a right wing religious nutjob then you're forced to bring your accident to term and into a life of shite because family planning isn't a real option.

No responsibility is taken. If the kids don't learn well at school then it's the teachers. Or the curriculum or whatever. It's bullshit. Teaching happens at home as much as at school, and I'm not just talking about homework.

My mother's just retired as a teacher in the UK. She'd have kids play up in class and end up having to phone the parents to tell them about it and discuss what they could do to help. Most of the time all she got from the parents was an incredulous 'what's it got to do with us? He's at school, he's your problem, if he's being naughty it's you who's fucked up'.

She taught kids who have never known anyone in their family have a job. Parents don't work, their parents don't work, and even their parents never had a proper job. These kids just don't understand their place in the world, or rather they understand the tiny little world they live in but have no idea how to get out of it or even that it's a possibility.

These kids then grow up and do what their family has always done. They have kids mid teens and just live at home soaking up the benefits.

It would take an astonishing amount of foresight for a kids from this world stop and think 'Hey, maybe if we waited a bit and saved some money it would be much better'. They'd be the first in the family for generations to think that way.

These are extreme cases, but the same mentality flows around the whole system. Everything is there to be moaned at and criticised and most importantly blamed for all your problems. This leaves you a victim of circumstance, there's nothing you could have done...

Well, you could prevent MASS migration by removing the reason most are migrating. If they could be provided some stability where they live, most of them would not leave their homes. That seems to me to be the best, most reasonable, cheapest, and only feasible 'solution' to this current refugee problem....and it solves a few other important international problems as well.

I have an idea along those lines (that won't be implemented). European countries should allow any family that wants to immigrate to do so, but require that at least one 18-30 year old immediate family member (lets say 1 for every 5 immigrants) to enlist in an international military force and go 'home' to fight Daesh...if not more.
That might solve SO many issues and fears in one stroke...which is why I'm certain it won't happen.

@Asmo
i get what you are saying but i think you are missing the insidious implications that this new system of indoctrination represents.

i think @ChaosEngine's term 'stealth totalitarianism" is rather clever..and apt.

i agree with you on the points of peer pressure and how people can easily be manipulated.we are all,to varying degrees,subjected to a plethora of propaganda and targeted rhetoric,all meant to mold and shape our opinions in order to sustain the status quo while giving the impression that somehow our conclusions are an organic and natural response,when in reality we have been duped.

on that point we agree that this is not actually something new or novel but an old,tried and true method of social control.

what is new about this 'gaming" system,is that it is not taking the more subtle and passive approach of what current and supposedly "free" societies now implement to control public opinions and attitudes in order to either remain in power,sway the public into policies against their own interest,or create an atmosphere of fear to foment opposition.

this new system is actually aggressive.
this system will actively use its own population to do the oppressing,manipulating and controlling FOR them.

it is brilliant in it's simplicity.
it will use very human attributes we all possess in order to enact a better system of control,all the while having the appearance of being a harmless and innocuous social media competition.

but it is anything but harmless.
nor innocuous.
it will and can affect every facet of someones life.from their job to where they will be able to live,to even HOW they live.

think back to the times of east germany and the stasi,or the weimar republic,or even the soviet union of the 80's.

all used elements this new gaming system is representing,but those systems of control,while relying on the public to do much of its surveilling,all had one thing in common that they ALL relied heavily on:fear.

fear of reprisal.
fear of exposure.
fear and suspicion were the driving forces that kept those systems in power and the people in a perpetual state of paranoia.

the dread of the midnight knock.
of jackboots and black bags.

but those systems of control were fragile and once even a little resistance was exerted those systems crumbled incredibly fast.

this new system is far more subtle and devious in my opinion,because it removes the spectre of an imposing and oppressive government that will respond with violence and replaces it with the citizen to do the work for them.

the government does not have to do anything.
your neighbor will,and not because of some fear-based reason but rather for points to propel their own ambitions.their own selfish desires.

the wholesale implications are absolutely terrifying if you really think about it.

i would speculate that within a very short amount of time dissent and criticism of the chinese government will all but have vanished.replaced by a obedient and compliant population.

not because they are afraid of reprisal from the government but rather fueled by their own selfish desires for a better job,better living quarters,more privileges etc etc.

so a seemingly benign system utilizing social media will become of a self-propelled system,where those who do not tow the party line soon face joblessness,homelessness and ostracization.

not because the government strong armed them into submission,but rather their own neighbors.

so you are right.
there is nothing new here,but this system has taken the old forms of social control and brilliantly utilized one of humanities greatest weaknesses:selfishness.

it is the simplicity that makes this so brilliant and yet so horrifying at the same time.

Last time I checked, ants are a living thing and they live on the earth.

Where is the option for the cotton planter to change careers to something they find interesting and challenging?

Does it matter? If you have a job that you studied for in college and suddenly notice it doesnt fit you, you have to work a lot to correct that for no pay, you actually have to pay for it. Also if youre 40+ and want to start a new career human resource managers will rather take someone who didnt have the issues like you and has the years experience in actual work at the same job. So you will always be at a huge disadvantage if you decide to change professions.
All these "super successful" people you see on TV that proudly talk about how they did all that so well, "just because they worked soooooo hard" (everyone either does that, or claims it), are exceptions to the rule!



Where are the benefits of infrastructure?

Uhm, those infrastructures are mostly used to get to your job or do your job anyway. What good are they if you work where you live, like those slaves?



How about healthcare?

AFAIK slaves got good healthcare, since they were property and the owner would lose money if they "broke" and couldnt be fixed.
Also I wouldnt call American healthcare good. People have to pay for it. And often have to take huge debts on themselves and their family to survive or be still able to work.



How about individual's rights?

Individual's rights? Yeah, maybe against other "slaves", but not against the state or rich people. They will always have a huge advantage compared to you. And actually they do what they want all over the world. Just look at those cesspools Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Millions killed for what? Are you safer now than before 9/11? No. The whole world is actually MUCH MUCH unsafer now. All thanks to your masters that care so much about the "individual's rights".
They even have the audacity to threaten NATO countries with invasion if they ever dared to bring one of them before an international tribunal.



How about protection from hostility?

Hostility from whom? Terrorists? Are you kidding me? Terrorists who are only created due to inhumane politics aswell? Criminals? Do you know that crime is actually not something we are born with, but we actually learn to do, because of our surroundings? If a lot of people feel treated unfair and cant do anything about it, crime rate will skyrocket. It has been that way for thousands of years. Look at other countries that treat their people much more humane and actually even pay then enough to live a good life even if they dont work, or have never worked! They shudder when seeing American crime rates. You can compare yourself more to Brazil than to Europe.



How about ever improving quality of life?

Most people are extremely stressed in their life, due to their job, not having enough time because of their job, being frustrated because other people have more then them, while working less (or not at all), having health issues due to their work and they know they cant change the job because they wont get another one, they simply hate their job, but also know they cant get a better one, etc, etc, etc.
There was a study a few years ago where they found out that people 500-1000 years ago were actually very happy. They didnt have to work nearly as much as we do nowadays! It wasnt rare that they only worked 6 months a year, and even if they worked they had MUCH longer breaks every day and didnt work as long. And they lived a good life for those times. Of course nowhere near as good as the monarchs, but it wasnt nearly as bad as its commonly claimed.

One thing has changed though: If youre smart and/or lucky (as in having a rich family) you can open your own company, do what you love. But even that gets harder and harder because the competition gets higher in numbers and in quality.

WTF, they've got the evidence on tape, they've got the employees and owner on the phone, they're staking out the joint, and they've got the ex-cop sitting across the street watching... and you still can't get an arrest? All the assholes have to do is say "nuh-uh", and they live to cheat another day.
Totally unsatisfying...

Life lessons garnered:

"YOU can paint a picture."

You don't need to "go to school half your life."
You don't need to be "blessed by Michelangelo at birth."
You don't need 1500 colors. 8 will do.
"You just need a dream in your heart and some practice."

Your base needs to be firm. "If you start with a thin, loose paint, you're going to become a mud-mixer."

Large strokes live in your mind. Details live in your brush. "You just need to push them out."

Don't lose the trees for the forest. Think about the small world that lives in your painting and it will be much richer. "This is where they live [these creatures]... In these bushes"

Painting will teach you to look at Nature and see things that have been there all your life, and you've never noticed. "Look around, look at what we have. Beauty is everywhere."

"In the time you sit around worrying about it and trying to plan a painting, you could have completed a painting already. Let it happen."

"We need dark in order to show light."

This video is a bit misleading. Very few kids here in Japan travel completely alone to school unless they live in very rural areas (and even then, they probably go with older siblings). As you see later in the clip, most kids go to school together with friends in small groups, at a minimum a pair but sometimes in huge groups. In my neighborhood, at around 8:45 in the morning, you can see virtually the entire local elementary school walking together towards the public school. They might not be under direct adult supervision, but they are rarely alone and there is always an adult nearby because people are usually commuting to work on the same roads/trains that the kids are using to get to school.

And like they said, the reason this can happen is that violent crimes against children such as kidnapping are almost non-existent here. Adults are far more likely to end up missing/dead here. Contrast that with Western countries like the U.S. or Australia and it quickly becomes apparent why people are escorting or bussing their kids to school in those countries.

I will say that there is a negative side to the "independence" they are touting in this video, which is that these same children often run completely free after school with zero adult supervision. Some of them can get a little wild (throwing rocks at passing cars and stuff or making way too much noise in a crowded residential area) but the cultural attitude here is that it's just "kids being kids," although I sometimes suspect that's code for "we don't want to actually have to parent our kids unless someone forces us to."