All bout america

This is wrong and put me off my bacon for a bit

but i am not going to give up meat, im sorry

as for the video this is just an extream example of what happens in some of these slaughter houses

and im sorry but it is not proper practice to punch a baby cow to death with you fist's

they really should be finding a better way to process meat so that the animals are not treated so brutally

and btw

FUCK VEGANS, to me the message of the video was completely ruined

This is why you buy local, people. (If it's available).

Yeah, slaughter houses are disgusting, but the stuff in the video is a tad illegal, and not representative of what is being done in most cases.

andr_00_ew wrote:What's wrong with being a person that eats meat?

edit: watched the video, definitely should not be doing that stuff to animals, but I still don't think it's wrong to eat them. But doing what the video showed is at a lack of better words, fucked up. Definitely glad I'm not going to work at a place like that

Well there isn't anything wrong with it. I practically eat nothing but it. I was just responding to the "Didn't watch the video, and I LOVE MEAT" or something rather. It just sounded a bit ignorant.

I read the posts and was not in the mood to watch something disgusting, also stated that I loved eating meat. Also, even if I, the meat eater, stopped eating meat, animals would still get slaughtered. So don't just attack me for being honest. Hopefully meatshield is right and that isn't the common treatment.

Edit in response to Kz: Most vegans I met were assholes to me because I am a animal killer apparently. They seem nicer to animals then PEOPLE

Not arguing you should stop eating meat because I think that's a pointless cause in itself, I was just inferring that your sudden stance to a side without watching what was at hand and then commenting was a little bit rushed. Meatshield is right, the place I worked at not too long ago this kind of stuff was unspeakable. We'd have animal rights groups all up our asses if we did that.

Andrew, the very definition of ignorance is ignoring evidence of the other side (the video) in order to preserve your own belief.

That isn't the definition though, Ignorance is just basically not know something or to lack the knowledge of something.

What you described sounds more like being stubborn.

(Just to be fair, I don't actually know what you folks are talking about. Heh, irony.)

I don't see the problem here, all I said was that I didn't watch the video, and I like meat .... I never said that brutality against animals is right. It would be ignorant If I was going to say something to contradict the video without even watching it first.

Also a post later I did end up watching the video, as I said in it

edit: you guys are acting as if I did say something bad

Cry Vengeance wrote:That isn't the definition though, Ignorance is just basically not know something or to lack the knowledge of something.

What you described sounds more like being stubborn.

(Just to be fair, I don't actually know what you folks are talking about. Heh, irony.)

Ignorance is willingly ignoring the possibility of knowledge, correct? By extension, ignorance would be willingly ignoring the other side. which is what I described

In some cases, stubbornness is ignorance.

And in others, it's bliss... What is this conversation about again?

Super Mega King wrote:Ignorance is willingly ignoring the possibility of knowledge, correct? By extension, ignorance would be willingly ignoring the other side. which is what I described

In some cases, stubbornness is ignorance.

This is everyone giving a fuck...

Reference the first 10 seconds of this video:

Super Mega King wrote:

Cry Vengeance wrote:That isn't the definition though, Ignorance is just basically not know something or to lack the knowledge of something.

What you described sounds more like being stubborn.

(Just to be fair, I don't actually know what you folks are talking about. Heh, irony.)

Ignorance is willingly ignoring the possibility of knowledge, correct? By extension, ignorance would be willingly ignoring the other side. which is what I described

In some cases, stubbornness is ignorance.

Ignorance is not willingly ignoring information. Ignorance as derived from the dictionary is..

–adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
3.uninformed; unaware.
4.due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

It says nothing about "willing to ignore information".This being said what you mean to say is that, whoever you are talking about, is CHOOSING to be ignorant, instead of being called ignorant in the sense that you stated the meaning of the word is "choosing to be uninformed" when it just means uninformed.

if i was president i would let everyone out of jail, sell guns at grocery stores and make every sort of drug legal

steveeee wrote:if i was president i would let everyone out of jail, sell guns at grocery stores and make every sort of drug legal

Until big business stepped in and placed your nuts on the piping hot, yet increasingly disgusting McDonald's grill.


And once again, why does it matter if Super used the term incorrectly? I am sure you can find various other examples of not completely thought out sentence structures, grammar, and what have you. This forwards the argument as much as the mother from 'The Room' forwards the plot. Can we please get rid of the English lesson, accept that Super meant the use of the word differently, and continue to rub the, already beaten, subject further into a pit of salt and razors?

The definition I used was a separate definition I obtained from Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings in which she stresses that ignorance is the lack of knowledge despite the ability to attain said knowledge while illiteracy is the lack of knowledge without the means to obtain said knowledge.

That being said, I will concede that the definition I used is not the accepted definition, but will posit that Andrew was still being ignorant.




And I'm really not sure why any of this matters or why this was a matter that needed to be disputed.

Super Mega King wrote:

Cry Vengeance wrote:That isn't the definition though, Ignorance is just basically not know something or to lack the knowledge of something.

What you described sounds more like being stubborn.

(Just to be fair, I don't actually know what you folks are talking about. Heh, irony.)

Ignorance is willingly ignoring the possibility of knowledge, correct? By extension, ignorance would be willingly ignoring the other side. which is what I described

In some cases, stubbornness is ignorance.

If it didnt matter then why debate it with Cry in the first place since all he was doing was stating the true definition? You were the one to start the "dispute" on the definition in the first place.

Also, if you are debating something based off of a definition you derived from a piece of literature in contrast to what it really means to most people as read in the dictionary..then why not state that before you present yourself as believing the definition is "willingly ignoring the possibility of knowledge."

Viperous Slayer wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:

Cry Vengeance wrote:That isn't the definition though, Ignorance is just basically not know something or to lack the knowledge of something.

What you described sounds more like being stubborn.

(Just to be fair, I don't actually know what you folks are talking about. Heh, irony.)

Ignorance is willingly ignoring the possibility of knowledge, correct? By extension, ignorance would be willingly ignoring the other side. which is what I described

In some cases, stubbornness is ignorance.

If it didnt matter then why debate it with Cry in the first place since all he was doing was stating the true definition? You were the one to start the "dispute" on the definition in the first place.

Also, if you are debating something based off of a definition you derived from a piece of literature in contrast to what it really means to most people as read in the dictionary..then why not state that before you present yourself as believing the definition is "willingly ignoring the possibility of knowledge."

Hes right....

I wasn't intending on starting an argument, so that can stop now. I just don't think of SMK as the sort of guy to use a word out of context, especially since he was making a point with Andrew.


So yeah, moving on.

Cry Vengeance wrote:I wasn't intending on starting an argument, so that can stop now.

You mad? Also im pretty sure he ment SMK not you...

Viper: I disputed it in the first place because I assumed that my definition was the norm as that was the way that I have always been taught that ignorance is used; generally, I've learned, ignorance is used in negative connotation to those that have the ability to obtain knowledge yet choose not to. That is to say, "An ignorant politician refuses to acknowledge the rival political party's argument." I was incorrect in saying that "the very definition of..." I apologize for, as Cry said, using the word out of context.

Tophat 44 wrote:

Cry Vengeance wrote:I wasn't intending on starting an argument, so that can stop now.

You mad? Also im pretty sure he ment SMK not you...

Reading comprehension, Tophat. Obviously, Viper was addressing me but Cry wanted argument to stop as a whole. I have admitted that I was incorrect and, unless anyone wants to get a final word in, I don't think there's anything left to be said.


New topic:

Pledge of Allegiance. I got an assignment today to write a paper with a topic sentence that: "The Pledge of Allegiance is a GREAT concept but..."

I mean, the first thing that comes to my mind is the "under God" phrase that sort of goes against the whole "separation of church and state"

Lol guys... a little off topic with the definition debate wouldn't you say?

Anyways, starting a new topic now, it seems we have discussed many things, but there are a couple topics left I can think of that we just "touched" on, but didn't go into.

1. Healthcare. Do you think our current system works? Do you think it needs reform? What is you position on Universal Healthcare? Why? What about medical research? Do we spend too much.. or too little? etc...

2. Energy. This is often linked to the environment, but I think we hit that already. As for energy though: What "source(s)" are the answer? Are we in an energy crisis now like the latter half of the 20th century? What would you "ideal power grid breakdown" look like? (ex. 4% solar, 40% coal, 30% nuclear, etc..). Pros and cons to your choices? etc....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for me (i'm not trying to shove aside SMK's new topic), I have never really liked the "pledge". Never really said it half the time in grade school tbh, just hummed while the people next to me "covered". To be it is just pledging blind loyalty to a country... then again, it is our duty? As for the "under God" thing, yes, it does have a religious factor in it, and I think it has been debated on for awhile now on whether or not to "take it out". I personally am neutral on it. Haven't been "forced" to say the pledge for years now.

(Tophat, "You mad" doesn't even apply there, also I started that entire conversation, so maybe you should read a bit more.)



I've always thought the controversy over the whole "Under God" debate was just silly and reserved for middle aged, middle class soccer moms with nothing else to do but complain about risqué literature and bitch about how society is having a harmful influence on their kids.

I mean, it's "Under God", which is general enough to cover every religion (It doesn't say "Under Jesus" or "Under Allah" etc.) I just never understood on why, for the entire pledge, people home in on that specific part just because it mentions God. It's not even the focus of the damn thing, it's supposed to be a bit more patriotic, but then again it was written back in a time when people actually cared.

Actually, Cry, that "Under God" was not added until 1954 (the Pledge was written in 1892). I can't help but ask why it was added at all. I don't exactly disagree with you, but I'd say that the fact that it mentions religion at all is the problem. Separation of church and state, anyway. Besides, as I'm reading in this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Pledge_of_Allegiance), some say it apparently violates the first amendment.

Other criticism for it arises from blindly following the flag, etc. On the same wikipedia article as above, it states that Michael Moore provided an alternative that I sort of like better.

I pledge allegiance to the people of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which we stand, one nation, part of one world, with liberty and justice for all.

to austin: I'm not so versed on the energy crisis to have any incredibly intelligent words there, but I feel as if Universal Healthcare is the way to go.

I didn't mention a date specifically so I didn't get a "Actually" response. Anyways, like I said, I just think it's more important to focus on what the pledge means or was supposed to mean rather than people homing in on the one "controversial" part of it.

I was simply making a point that the "Under God" was ADDED.

Which really seems weird to me.