Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Unregistered
aliases
- David
- some guy
- TomTom
- Travis
- Akiva
- wtf
- timtim
- kais
- nope
- undrafted
- 3 doors down
- UberGeek
- SanAn
- anon
- PPD
- Alan
- Tux
- Cag
- Messr Pedant
- david
- Fortis
- definatly_not_fcnz
- Kell
- Pfft.
- Anonymous
- Nope.
- Bleu, vert et bleu
- joey203
- NOpe
- Chris
- Expo
- Mia
- Mr. Name
- Ted
- Anony
- witheld
- Keith
- bocephus
- Frank
- Nope!
- Charlie
- JE SPE
- Jimbo
- wvnvla
- Jeff
- kris
- The Facts
- Calvin Lawson
- rmmca
- Curmudgeon
- em jay
- nope
- Jim
- Nope
- scott
- Solitary
- Jordan
- chris
- Dave
- Today Show Watcher
- atom
- correction needed: p.m to a.m.
- Hey
- Polly Amory
- Scott
- Special Ed
- Supplement Guru
- c
- B
- concerned visitor
- Meh
- Jesse
- Someone with a brain
- Matt
- mcd
- Hasse
- nah
- Deltahead
David
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 week ago
in The reader who sent this in says, “Birthday Cake... - STFU, Parents on STFU, Parents
it seems to me that the status update was from the Dad who was forgotten by Super Mom.
1 reply
~Heather W~
Nah, she's a single mom. A single SUPER mom. (And she's going further over the deep end, so I'm less concerned that she'll stumble on this and know I'm the one who submitted it ;-))
1 month ago
in 40K SNEAK PEEK: New Leman Russ Demolisher on Bell of Lost Souls
You do know that was a scratch build that one of the guys from around here (melbourne) did as a practical joke to stick on warseer don't you?
1 reply
obsequiousmelon
Funny if that's true...
2 months ago
in Moving Beyond Environmental Veganism on Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World
I'm sorry but your very premise is ridiculous. Maybe the guy who conied the term in 70 years ago had one thing in mind, but the term has come to mean something else. It is a definition of a diet, not a life style. I'm a vegan, and I do it for the environment. Let me ask you a question, would you refuse modern medical treatment because it was tested on animals? I hope you never need surgery, because guess what, EVERYTHING was testing on animals. We have to be rational about this. You can't just pick and choose. Are you going to start refusing medical treatment? My guess is no. So please, stop with the "there is only one way!" BS. I know you said it many times, that it's good people are doing this, but then you do the whole my-way-is-the-right-way bit, which is of course ridiculous. I think there are farmers who love their animals and decide to eat them when they die. I think there are scientists who have the utmost respect for the animals they test medication on, knowing it might save a humans life some day. You don't get to define what love is or how people act on it. This was pretty short sighted in my opinion.
1 reply
Bob Torres
You say my premise is ridiculous, but you don't really say what's ridiculous about it, and instead throw out a comparison that makes no sense. Veganism is most definitely not merely a diet; it is living principles in your daily life that happens to have a dietary component. To me, veganism isn't merely about what I eat. It is about how I see animals and how I believe that humans should relate to them. It is me living those principles as best I can in my life.
As for the medical treatment, I don't really get your point at all, especially as it relates to what I wrote above. Because I hate wasting effort, I'll just paste in something from the draft of our book, because it explains why your criticism is absurd:
--- begin quote --
The ubiquity of animal products in unavoidable places is a by-product of speciesism – we live in a world in which the social and economic systems provide us with no other real alternatives to these products, some of which are absolutely essential to our health or livelihoods. In this case, because we have no real, viable alternative, we have no choice but to consume the things that we need to live. As a result, it is often difficult to avoid all animal products as a practical matter. Gary Francione addresses this same point in his book Introduction to Animal Rights:
“…assume that we find that the local water company employs child labor and we object to child labor. Are we obligated to die of dehydration because the water company has chosen to violate the rights of children? No, of course not. We would be obligated to support the abolition of this use of children, but we would not be obligated to die. Similarly, we should join together collectively and demand an end to animal exploitation, but we are not obligated to accept animal exploitation or forego any benefits that it might provide.”19
The important point here is to recognize when you’re in a situation in which consuming the product that contains animal ingredients is unavoidable versus when it is avoidable. We can’t stress enough that most people can easily avoid animal products and foods containing them – even when they’re on vacation in Paris. Yet, we don’t want anyone thinking that to be a “good” vegan, they need to forego medicine that has been prescribed to them by a doctor,20 or that they need to give up their daily commute because of the by-product in the tires of the bus they’re riding in.
--- end quote ---
All that said, I especially don't get your point about farmers and animals. I love my dogs. I have no desire to eat any of them when they die. I have the utmost respect for you as a commenter on my blog, but I have no wish to show that respect by injecting you with medications, or exposing your eyes to toxic chemicals until you're blinded by them. You're right: I don't get to define love. But no one who is sane would define anything like any of the foregoing as love. Would you? Honestly? Would you be flattered if your lover said that he or she wished to show her love for you by confining you and testing deadly chemicals on you, and then harvesting your liver to look for toxicity?
Veganism is about animal rights, and it always has been. I'm simply asking people to consider that.
As for the medical treatment, I don't really get your point at all, especially as it relates to what I wrote above. Because I hate wasting effort, I'll just paste in something from the draft of our book, because it explains why your criticism is absurd:
--- begin quote --
The ubiquity of animal products in unavoidable places is a by-product of speciesism – we live in a world in which the social and economic systems provide us with no other real alternatives to these products, some of which are absolutely essential to our health or livelihoods. In this case, because we have no real, viable alternative, we have no choice but to consume the things that we need to live. As a result, it is often difficult to avoid all animal products as a practical matter. Gary Francione addresses this same point in his book Introduction to Animal Rights:
“…assume that we find that the local water company employs child labor and we object to child labor. Are we obligated to die of dehydration because the water company has chosen to violate the rights of children? No, of course not. We would be obligated to support the abolition of this use of children, but we would not be obligated to die. Similarly, we should join together collectively and demand an end to animal exploitation, but we are not obligated to accept animal exploitation or forego any benefits that it might provide.”19
The important point here is to recognize when you’re in a situation in which consuming the product that contains animal ingredients is unavoidable versus when it is avoidable. We can’t stress enough that most people can easily avoid animal products and foods containing them – even when they’re on vacation in Paris. Yet, we don’t want anyone thinking that to be a “good” vegan, they need to forego medicine that has been prescribed to them by a doctor,20 or that they need to give up their daily commute because of the by-product in the tires of the bus they’re riding in.
--- end quote ---
All that said, I especially don't get your point about farmers and animals. I love my dogs. I have no desire to eat any of them when they die. I have the utmost respect for you as a commenter on my blog, but I have no wish to show that respect by injecting you with medications, or exposing your eyes to toxic chemicals until you're blinded by them. You're right: I don't get to define love. But no one who is sane would define anything like any of the foregoing as love. Would you? Honestly? Would you be flattered if your lover said that he or she wished to show her love for you by confining you and testing deadly chemicals on you, and then harvesting your liver to look for toxicity?
Veganism is about animal rights, and it always has been. I'm simply asking people to consider that.
3 months ago
in BREAKING NEWS: Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) Condemns Time Warner Internet Cap; Will Take Lead Role in Opposition on Stop the Cap test
Well, who didn't see this coming?
It sounds good and if Time Warner won't listen to their customers, then I guess it's better than nothing. But if you look at our current situation (economically speaking) I'd say government involvement is the beginning of the end.
I have to admit, when I first saw this post, I was pretty stoked. I thought the same thing that most people did: "Finally, we have some 'real' support!"
But then I got to thinking (oops!): I'd love to think that Eric Massa (and every other politician who is looking to get re-elected-which would be....uh...all of them) is doing this out of the goodness of his heart, but I have a really hard time believing that. Then again, I'm a cynical guy ;).
But there's hope: The system is working. TWC is trying to pull some BS and we, the people, are doing something about it. Go team customer!
However, the government is not your parents. That being said, I think that it's time for the American public to stop treating them like a rich kid treats his dad. We shouldn't suckle at the teet of some corporation, and we certainly shouldn't do the same for an institution with even less competition. We're adults. Let's start acting like it.
The only thing more scary to me than bandwidth caps is a precedent that makes us feel alright about the government messing around with something as powerful as the Internet.
It sounds good and if Time Warner won't listen to their customers, then I guess it's better than nothing. But if you look at our current situation (economically speaking) I'd say government involvement is the beginning of the end.
I have to admit, when I first saw this post, I was pretty stoked. I thought the same thing that most people did: "Finally, we have some 'real' support!"
But then I got to thinking (oops!): I'd love to think that Eric Massa (and every other politician who is looking to get re-elected-which would be....uh...all of them) is doing this out of the goodness of his heart, but I have a really hard time believing that. Then again, I'm a cynical guy ;).
But there's hope: The system is working. TWC is trying to pull some BS and we, the people, are doing something about it. Go team customer!
However, the government is not your parents. That being said, I think that it's time for the American public to stop treating them like a rich kid treats his dad. We shouldn't suckle at the teet of some corporation, and we certainly shouldn't do the same for an institution with even less competition. We're adults. Let's start acting like it.
The only thing more scary to me than bandwidth caps is a precedent that makes us feel alright about the government messing around with something as powerful as the Internet.
1 reply
grant
I think I agree with atom.
I'm not sure that having the government intervene is the right step. Its a bit of a slippery slope to tell any business what they can and can't charge.
TW is obviously making a play for money. And we should not stand for it. I'm not sure that they are acting illegally, however. The real culprit here is Frontier. If they hadn't all but implemented their own cap, and if they offered any competition, we might not be in this mess. Their impotence in the market, made us a target.
There is an arguement that TWC is leveraging a "virtual monopoly", but I really wish that FIOS were an otpion or that Frontier was at least strong enough to keep them honest.
I'm still hopeful that there will be enough backlash to shut this down without government help.
I'm not sure that having the government intervene is the right step. Its a bit of a slippery slope to tell any business what they can and can't charge.
TW is obviously making a play for money. And we should not stand for it. I'm not sure that they are acting illegally, however. The real culprit here is Frontier. If they hadn't all but implemented their own cap, and if they offered any competition, we might not be in this mess. Their impotence in the market, made us a target.
There is an arguement that TWC is leveraging a "virtual monopoly", but I really wish that FIOS were an otpion or that Frontier was at least strong enough to keep them honest.
I'm still hopeful that there will be enough backlash to shut this down without government help.
