The best evidence you have for your claims (as I see it) is anecdotal at best.
3rd world countries 1) are not at all vegetarian and 2) don't get most cancers Westerners do largely because they don't eat processed foods or expose themselves to carcinogenic chemicals constantly....we do.
Again, NEVER get your science from the internet.

"Pro-life" is by definition "anti-choice".

If you're really pro-planet, a MUCH better way to go about it is try to get people to have fewer children. That will make exponentially more difference than some people eating fewer animals. In fact, if past human behavior is a guide, if we all stop eating animals, animals will cease to exist for the most part, so that's not helpful to them at all.

Again, fewer people is the proper answer, not forcefully change biologically engrained behavior. I made that choice, so I can eat all the animals I ever possibly can and I've done more for the planet and it's animals with that single action than 1000 vegans with vegan children...or more positive difference than one vegan with children, depending on how you want to look at it.

As a living being, I'm standing up for all living beings who certainly object to your choice to breed, both the voiceless and those with voice, and saying stop making choices that negatively impact us all, like having more children and grandchildren. If enough people would do that, eating meat won't be an ecological issue. ;-)

I didn't watch the videos, I don't get my science from the internet. I read scientific publications that contain peer reviewed science papers, and I've never seen one that said ALL the nutrients found in meat could be replaced with vegetable nutrients easily, simply, viably, or without excessive expense.
Also, it ignores that fact that most produce available in the first world comes with a huge carbon footprint and massive ecological damage because of the production methods, so it's not the 'clean' trade off you seem to assume.

Small family farms were plenty to meet demand for all of human history until about the last 50 years. Quit having kids, and it will be enough again and we can stop abusing animals and the eco system just to make enough food for humans.

A short, good life is preferable to no life at all.

Nope. I should have scheduled the one in that picture that's mine to end his life at least a year earlier, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. NOT doing it was immoral. If someone had been willing to eat him, I would be all for it. If someone wants to eat me, go for it...I suggest slow smoking and a molasses based BBQ sauce. Eating my dog would be ecologically sound, as opposed to the cremation we ended up with, or burial, being the only other option available.
If I raised dogs for food, I would not think twice about ending their life in their prime. That would be the reason they existed in the first place, and without that reason they would never get that chance.

Again, milk cows only exist because someone wanted to partner with them to benefit both. Without that symbiosis, they would not get the opportunity to exist at all. IMO, existence is preferable to no existence. Yes, they need to get pregnant at least once, but as I understand it, that's it so long as you keep up with milking them. Veal, now there I'll totally agree with you that IT'S abuse.

Animals are not people. They do not usually have the same need for freedom, and those that do have that need were never domesticated. It is not immoral to form a symbiosis with another species as long as you both benefit in some way, otherwise you're just a parasite.

? Taste, as in how animals taste? BS, that's not all. That's a component, sure, but there's incredibly more to it than that.

I prefer to give animals a reason to exist, knowing that without that human centric reason, they simply won't get the chance, but I do my best to purchase animal products that are created with the least distress and best conditions for the animals in question...granted that's not always possible to know.

Trust me, I've tried vegetarian 'meats', I know the difference, and absolutely don't prefer vegan fare, or vegetarian fare that attempts to emulate meat. If I want meat, I'll eat meat. You'll get my butter only by prying it from my cold, dead hands. ;-)

I don't think taste is quite as simple as you imply. Yes, there is a component of 'addiction' to certain foods, especially sugar rich foods.
There's no such thing as vegan cheese or chocolate, you mean tofu and carob...and I agree, they both suck.

Sorry, that's simply wrong. A poor eating vegan can certainly negatively impact the planet with their food choices. It's easy. Oreos for instance, are most certainly made with ecologically damaging factory farm methods creating the ingredients...well, those methods and chemists. I don't know off hand the carbon footprint and ecological impact of an oreo, but it's not "none".

He might be correct in theory, but realistically they will follow all but the most heinous orders. It is entrenched in them the longer they serve to follow commands and the threat of military prison is there as well. For something like this to happen, it would require 100% agreement and compliance between all levels of the commanding officers on a very controversial decision.

More likely is that the orders would be filtered and interpreted by the actual lower level commanders in a way to make them ineffective. For instance, if Trump ordered a drone strike on illegal immigrants (just an example based on his dislike of them), the drone might encounter mechanical issues or just miss the target. Soldiers, by and large, are great bullshitters. Trust me, if you ever play pen and paper RPGs with them it is fucking hilarious how they work out ways to dodge 'orders'.

They aren't concerned about privacy so much as weakening their code, which will leave them vulnerable to customer anger and possibly lawsuits later on.

Trust me, after having worked for them for years, I can unequivocally declare that if they could figure out a way to give the government a permanent backdoor while still protecting themselves, they would in a heartbeat. Therefore, they aren't so much a patriot as they are a mercenary.

The main issue is that they can unlock individual units, which they have done before for the FBI, but that means that the FBI and other agencies have to get a new warrant each time. The Feebs don't want to do that, they would prefer a blanket unlock that would nicely bypass the 4th Amendment and allow them to access your digital information at any time. Unfortunately, a blanket unlock method would leak out into the wild at some point and leave everyone open completely. Apple has had that happen before, notably during the early phases of .Mac/MobileMe, and the legal department got slammed with claims/suits because the unlock workaround leaked.

Feel free to be specific, and not just coy and vague. Which parts were intended as 'tongue in cheek' - was it linking to right wing activist blogs? I am truthfully and honestly unsure, because we don't know each other - for some people, quoting CHS would be a joke, similar to quoting Anne Coulter, and for others it's a valid source. I still don't know which, if either, opinion you hold.

Trust me, I will happily and heartily chuckle at your wry, irascible tongue in cheek wit, if you can tell me which parts you thought you were being tongue in cheek about, and what your serious arguments are.

As to whether Christina Hoff Sommers is a feminist or not, I would guess that it's not as easy as just calling yourself a feminist. I can call myself a conservative, but the evidence is against me: I never vote conservative, I typically espouse progressive views, and I usually criticize flaws in conservative thought and policy, comparing it unfavorably to progressive thought. I think a reasonable person would have to say that I'm either being disingenuous if I call myself a conservative, or that I'm very very bad at it.

I don't get to decide what CHS calls herself, but as a rational person I have to look at her argument and see if it's based in feminism or in something entirely different, and make up my own mind about it regardless of labels.

As for the rest, I'm not sure, again, which parts you say are just straw manning it up and which parts we agree on. I thought we had some disagreements but you might have been tongue in cheek about all of it, for all I know.

For example, I thought we were in agreement on this: "so the situation is not some cut and dried situation,and there are extreme elements of any social movement,but those elements should not invalidate the message" - so I didn't comment on that part. It makes sense to me, and unless you were being tongue in cheek, we're in agreement.

I thought we came to an agreement (?) on the prevalence of rape and the need to look at the whole picture, but also agreed (?) that there are several other disheartening factors at work in the so-called justice system.

I thought, however, that we disagreed about your entire first point (both about how making discrimination illegal should eliminate the wage gaps, and about how no serious economists cite it). This is where I thought CHS was a poor rebuttal - regardless of her right wing activism, she's certainly not an economist; she's a philosopher by education, and not a particularly credible source on the economy. Again, if you were being tongue in cheek when quoting her I'll just erase that part and assume that we agree.

As for contradictory evidence, I can't swear that I'll be influenced by it, and I certainly won't accept it uncritically - we all have a hard time breaking down our own biases. But I'll happily and gratefully read it, as I assume you will too.

First i think your regurgitating your talking points incorrectly. Bad little stoolie!... Its that they won't, WILL NOT, call them Islamic Extremists. I know its an itty bitty difference but trust me at your next clan rally you'll get a really hard time if you say it the way you did.

Second if the big tough GOP is so afraid of the press and orphans they really shouldn't even bother running for president. It just seems like they are going to be faced with a LOT scarier things than that should the cowards in this country actually elect them.

On the other hand... its probably what jesus would do right?

Yes. Bi-polar is also looked down on even if one is not inherently bad...equal to sociopath in the negative connotations...trust me...I should know :?

So yeah, I defend your defense of Stu.

No, he raises a point that always should be taken into account. Not that the point is always valid mind you, nor am I saying it is valid here. But to jump on the "police apologist" bandwagon like the billion others for someone simply making that statement shows your bias.

If a description of the video is in the video description then it must be proven to be true, as a description of the content that is patently false (by omission or otherwise) is unacceptable on the Sift. Can't tag this with "cancer" can we? I mean T might have cancer, but nothing indicates such by the video.

If nothing, a link suffices that proves such, whether through eyewitnesses or such. Trust me, I tried to be funny once with the description...description denied...tried to be funny with tag...tag denied...

Hmmm, not sure how to respond to this.
Trust me, I was being completely serious. I honestly didn't know it was played at a competition level.

They sell them in the toy sections of every grocery and department store. It's a game, like lawn darts and bocci ball that we play when family comes to visit or at picnics. And every time we play it, even now, with my kids, we have to find the least broken rackets and the least squashed birdie to play with.

Seeing it played in competition, makes me think of competitive dodge-ball, something I also didn't know was a real sport other than in gym class.

Just because you have to rely on sign language doesn't mean you can't hear any sound at all.
Also, sound is essentialy a form of vibration. Ever stood in front of the speakers at a Motorhead concert? You can feel the music, trust me.

What interests me: at the beginning of the video, before Eminem starts rapping, does she sign something like 'piano music, piano music, piano music'?

That's certainly a video you don't want to watch with your pants on. Trust me, I tried.

I bought one of those kites years ago. Trust me. This guy has mad skills.

Haha, I knew I'd open a can of worms....
I enjoy music of all types, trust me. I know the history. I grew up in a radio station, and remember when DJs were the rock Stars of the 70s.

I have no boundaries, and in fact, the more music pushes the boundaries the better, but I still have to feel the groove.
Often, "musicians," get caught up in the medium and forget the composition. I know - I'm an artist, I've been there, created works, not for composition, but to better understand my medium. It's still art, but it's not "ART."

See what I'm saying. There is a whole new generation of not just musicians and composers, but listeners. they have their own new sound, but a lot of the soul is getting filtered out while the artists explore the medium. I know it will come full circle, but I believe we are in a stagnant period of exploration.

And no, I'm not commenting on all those classical musicians, in fact, they are doing the opposite. There are many classical musicians that are taking their instruments in new directions - finally - and breaking out of the Bach & Beethoven standards. (Stereotyping here). My favorite is Stravinsky, who pushed every boundary of his day. and Guys like Rossini, who was the Heavy Metal Rocker of his day. But there comes a time, to break out and use the instruments differently.

And that's what they are doing right now. Breaking out and exploring. Which is great, it will define another period in music. But we're not quite there yet. Publishers and studios, are the bottom feeders, trying to keep the industry alive, but they are manufacturing the lowest common denominator, giving the public some of the most contrived music of our day.

It's okay to criticize music as it evolves and still like it.
If we don't criticize it, then it doesn't evolve. And I think the artists themselves would agree because, once you stop and consider your groves perfect, then there is no point creating more.

You can come to the defense of the genre, but not every piece is perfect. Yes there are better musicians out there, and some worse, and some I like, you won't like, and so on, that's what makes it great. I remember laying on the couch listening to Kraftwork's Autobahn for hours and loving it. That was over 25 years ago. And I've listened to so much more in between. I've heard it, I've studied it in school, spun discs and worked DJ booths, and was literally raised in a radio station. I've heard a lot, and have the knowledge to compare notes.

I'll end this, it's going too long - but suffice to say, this piece here, is okay, but has no crescendo, nothing to keep me on the edge. The grove becomes quite trance, while trying not to be. He's done a great mix up, and I see what he's doing here. He's taken video excerpts and contained and arranged them together. Great... he's experimenting. But it's not perfect, and that's okay. He's worked hard to create something, and as he evolves, he'll create better, that's what it's all about

/off-topic & longish

I'm not trying to belittle you or anything, so please don't misinterpret the things I'm about to talk about. Regarding your supernatural experiences (which to be perfectly honest IF they do exist, and that is a big if) there are a few problems with them or rather that type of "belief". If it really did happen to you, then it wouldn't be very hard to see why you would believe in religion or be spiritual in a very strong sense of the word (though it depends I suppose on just what you experienced, or what "they" experience).

But, if your faith can be helped along by these type of events, then it would be the type of thing that science should be exploring. I know people will clearly state that you just "can't catch these events", but to be honest, if your body is able to see, hear, smell, or sense it...any number of scientific tests could as well. But, the problem is: when do they happen, how do they happen (by what mechanism, i.e. sound, smell, sight, etc...), and to whom will it occur (and even where will it occur might be a justified question too).

Eventually this should become something, even if on the "fringe" of science or rational belief, should become a real talking point...recognized by all. Simply because, eventually scientists must experience them too, or those with no faith or belief at all...

But, this is why I ask what kind of "event" did you experience?

I suffer from Narcolepsy. With this, I suffer nightly from huge attacks (around 3-15) sleep paralysis events. These events come in ALL sorts of flavors, and since it is from Narcolepsy it doesn't necessarily have to happen at night--like ghosts, or alien abductions (I mean, is it not a good question to wonder why these things almost always happen at night--oh, and the animals don't seem to be involved too much in this stuff for some reason as well). I also (and this is the real winner right here) suffer from, more or less, permanent bouts of hypnagogic hallucinations (typically they happen just as you are about to fall asleep or as you are waking up--with me, they can occur as soon as I'm getting tired). I also have severe Sleep Apnea, just to make all of this more "grandiose"...

Sleep Paralysis is something that was reported constantly even in the Middle Ages; a great painting named "The Nightmare" depicts someone that is actually going through one of these events. This is the actual foundation for succubi, demons, and even angels that visit people in their sleep--these people will feel unbelievable things, things you simply do NOT feel in normal day life...thus many believe a supernatural event has just occurred. The first one I had was when I was just waking up, for some reason I was petrified, couldn't move (and barely breath). Then I looked around my room. It was early morning so I could see in my room, in the corner of my room sat a dark humanoid "solid" shadow. From it emanated a feeling of pure, utter evil (which is were you get a supernatural feeling to this; because for one you do not see "humanoid shadows", nor is it possible to "feel" evil). Eventually I snapped myself out of it and later woke up. It left a stark impression upon me. Later my mind figured out somehow that if I relaxed in these moments, it ended immediately--meaning that I started o become somewhat lucid during the majority of these. I remember my friends and family always saying I was weird or that I scared them sometimes, because I would sleep with my eyes opened--well, this is part of that problem (like I said, I could see my room...everything seemed for the most part, real; it's like being awake and partially asleep--in a dream--at the same time).

Onto my real problem: Hypnagogic Hallucinations. I have no doubt whatsoever that EVERYONE that believes or rather has experienced ghosts/haunting(s), alien abductions, angels, demons, people yelling outside, dogs barking, your phone ringing when it hasn't, and "you name it, because EVERYTHING can happen in this category"... I suffer from this so much that the things I experience now are just a joke to me. Things grabbing me, my body changing shape (and YES you do "feel" the change), all manner of sounds (which is the most annoying; sometimes it sounds like someone has called my name...so I have to go check, it's very frustrating). Then combine this WITH a Sleep Paralysis event (and trust me, it does happen, but it it rare), you get an epic "light show".

So, this is why I asked you what type of supernatural event did you experience. Because, you may want to remember (this is JUST some things Narcolepsy can cause; other medical issues, medications, etc... can cause the same issues if not worse, more pronounced in certain ways and even causing certain changes in behavior, sensations, and feelings) that just with Narcolepsy I run into these issues--sleeping disorders are possibly responsible for a LARGE assortment of the "supernatural" issues you see out there. Then add in the countless number of other things that also affect our bodies and it isn't far fetched to soon realize that you just may have to hold onto what science has proven--only--or you may get lost.

I cannot say that this is you. I will not either. I don't pretend to know your experiences. But, I can share mine... The first Sleep Paralysis and or Hypnagogic Hallucination (as I have been able to move in a few Sleep Paralysis events...but very rarely; if I can though I move slowly) event I had, believe it or not, was when I was around 8 or 9. I imagined that I woke up in the night, turned and looked under my bed (it was a sleepover, so I was on the floor that night) and I saw a pair of red glowing lights, shaped vaguely like eyes looking at me. I kept looking at it, trying to figure out what it was, but very quickly it "blinked" and I knew it was alive. I was scared enough that I simply turned my back from it and tried to go back to sleep. The fact that I simply just turned my back to it and went back to sleep...is proof that it simply wasn't even real.

Had that BEEN real, I would've jumped up, flipped the light on; told everyone in the room and gotten my parents in the next room... But, it felt extremely real. Even to this day, the only thing that makes me realize it was fake was HOW I handled the situation...that is it. In fact that is usually the best way to tell reality apart from a dream (or hallucinations caused by enhanced REM cycles--REM cycles that start even while you are awake). You simply do not act like yourself in a dream, period.

I'll agree with you otherwise. I was definitely smothered by religion and it "stunted" me. It didn't cause me to hate it as much as many might think, but I became extremely wary of anything to do with it.

Sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose combined and it is immediately separated in the body by the saliva in your mouth. Glucose is fine for your body, it is the energy storage system that metabolizes into glycogen in the liver. Fructose, on the other hand, is a toxin that is metabolized in the body similarly to alcohol, as ChaosEngine said. Essentially it is treated as a toxin and turned into numerous by-products which do things like: delay your leptin response (you feel full later, thus making you eat more), increase your high-density lipo-protein (increasing your cholesterol and storing fat in your liver), and decreasing your sensitivity to insulin (leading to type-2 diabetes).

As to what artician said, high-fructose corn syrup and sugar are treated exactly the same in the human body. In fact, here is a list of all of the things that companies call sugar to hide it when it is the exact same thing: brown sugar, caster sugar, fruit sugar, organic sugar (in fact sometimes they just put organic in front of any of these things to make it seem better for you but trust me, it isn't), evaporated cane juice, evaporated cane syrup, high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, glucose-fructose, brown sugar, honey, molasses, golden syrup, high glucose corn syrup, agave/agave nectar, corn sweetener, fruit juice solids, cane syrup solids, fruit juice concentrate, invert sugar, maltodextrin and even fruit juice.

All of the studies done in the last 15 years have shown that sugar is sugar and calories are not calories. All of the kinds of sugar that have quantities of fructose are bad for you, except when they have fiber. This is why fruit is still good for you while fruit juice is the same thing as soda.

The only things that you do not have to avoid as a sugar are these: brown rice syrup, dextrose and glucose. All of these things are completely glucose, no fructose whatsoever. Therefore, they are largely safe. However, large quantities of glucose can give you a large liver because of the stored glycogen.

Some links if you don't believe me:

Comparison: http://www.foods4betterhealth.com/what-evaporated-cane-juice-sugar-vs-evaporated-cane-juice-8645

Aspartame: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4127 ; http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-artificial-sweeteners-safe/

HFCS vs Sugar: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157

Dangers of Fructose: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-fructose-corn-syrup/

It sounds that way on paper, yeah, but trust me -- it's an amazing film.