I disagree, and I could go on...

Preaching vegans on youtube annoy me and may think you can avoid them. You're wrong. Camera reviews and tutorials include them adding their politics.

I found a review of a canon I was thinking of buying, the kid called Vegan Socialist ending his review with an audio test. At this point, he got preachy and decided to say 'stop killing 150 billion animals a year, yourself and the planet'.

My thoughts are so fucking what, sure you can cut production of farming, you can make it more humane, but over farming to feed everyone with the ideal vegan diet won't save the planet either. All you'll do is drive pigs to extinction while feeling better about yourself.

The most obvious and humane food production with easy protein is to breed bugs by the 100 trillion and process them into artificial nuggets and burgers, etc. It's probably a lot easier than farming a perfect vegan diet for billions of people.

And, to troll people like this could dream up good arguments for humane cannibalism that are as morally consistent as the vegan arguments.

In any case, a radical rethink on morality would be required.

Another thought that works far better than the above ramblings is to lower meat production by the supermarket that floods their stores with cheap meat but means a vast sum of it will be wasted every day and as a result, keep the demand for meat high. Same for fast food places and many others establishments that waste huge amounts of food per year.

Lower the need or desire for meat and you may have run out of Tesco pork chops, but you'll kill fewer animals every year.

A Very Leftist Labelling Problem.

Interestingly, in the usage of terms in times past there liberal, progressive, socialist, and communist were very much apart. Today the lines are confused, and yet the same left divides exist.  A progressive could be ignorant and confused and think him or herself a communist, while not having taken the time to study Marx and work out if they are or are not of the ilk. 

A liberal might well think themselves a progressive while in reality not wishing for serious reform and so being more centrist than they like to admit. And so it is with a wide range of ideas. 
The idea or the fraction of it that you like creates a sense of identity, a great label that you think describes you well enough.  And, this is often regardless of the implications of a name and regardless of how others may perceive you as belonging to this mix and match belief. People are often pseudo as far as ideology. 

[will continue this line of thought soon.]

Notes from an online discussion.

Notes from an online discussion.  

Does anyone else think it's funny that Milo Yiansausages bitches about people in universities with liberal arts degrees or degrees in cultural studies when he is a dropout? 

I know he made his first rush of cash from an online business, sure, but he dropped out of law and then dropped out of English literature. So maybe he could have spent a few years doing an artistic or cultural degree instead?! 

He only has a career due to his first flurry of an online business and as an amateurish journalist he capitalised on gamergate, and now he panders to young republicans on US college campuses. 

I'm just saying he may be able to pull off some debates in a moderately fair manner, he can spin a few facts, however, he isn't more qualified for a reasonable discussion than many of my friends on facebook, some of whom have qualifications that far beyond his station. 

So consider the simple facts, we have a person who is by technicality as educated as many of you with a moderately better debating skill level and is able to recall a few basic biased surveys and studies that are flashed across the interwebs.   

 

Trumpeters Vs. SJWs: a quick thought.

Funny thing, these videos of feminist SJW fails are debates between passionate students in many cases, these students don't represent the centre, nor liberalism, nor centre-conservativism, but rather a political view that is more of a sweeping simplicity. A basic view grounded fundamentally on what they are convinced of at a young age, not a sceptical view as much as a strong but underfed political knowledge. Also, the troubling thing is how they boil down an ideology to what they want or are told as if a sum of an ideology is what they wish to accept, and all beyond their interpreted view is not truly what an ideology contains.

Trumpeters and left-progressives locked in conflicts and permanent apologetics over the ideological differences they enjoy, making the story up as they go, making facts fit, lying outright for their beliefs. And, these sides are supposedly rational while their opposition is irrational, even though they both like to express only their victories in a style of a propagandist. Not that every student or political person is involved, a fraction of society is involved, and fringe media groups, rarely the mainstream, give credence to such beliefs.

I dare say the mountains out of molehills created in such discussions serves little value, to claim it's agendas here or there with a lack of evidence is fair pathetic, to suggest conspiracy theories, to bend the facts, it is a deceptive affair.

The prideful and the professional victim have little to teach you, their roles serve little value, their beliefs are distorted, they fail to operate as honest people when it is inconvenient.

All this said, I dare say there are good people involved, but to be good doesn't mean you must be right, and to be politically fooled doesn't make you somehow a bad person by an automation.

Brainwashing Group Warning Signs

What is a Terrorist? - Politically incorrect

What is terrorism? 

 

The definition of terrorism, 'The unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.'[Oxford dictionaries].

Any organisation that seeks to kill people based on personal conviction may as well be labelled a terrorist group, although it may be best to explain this in details. If a movement, org, group has as a mantra kill n#gg#rs, or kill the cops, or kill all of those who insult God/Allah, and they act on their dogmatic view that they'd be justified in this action, then they're a terrorist as far as I'm concerned. 

 

When we see attacks by lone gunmen in America, and they were convinced to act on murderous impulses by an extremist ideology, he is a kind of terrorist, one who is using violence and intimidation to try to create political change.  Fear is a tool of such people, kill one to scare one thousand, send a message to create change.  Often they're not the most mentally sound, after all, whether it's ISIS or Al Qaeda the idea of cutting off a head or blowing up a family isn't something that a rational and sane person can do, well not without brainwashing to shrink one's reason and limit sanity to an extreme ideology.  We shouldn't care what ideology is at work in labelling a terrorist, a white supremacist on an unofficial mission is still a terrorist like the Muslim extremist who has a whole organisation backing him from Syria or Iraq.  

 

We have had the call from many on the left to make clear that mentally ill killers get called 'terrorists', they have a point to a degree, a person, even if unstable, if affected profoundly by an ideology to act in an extreme manner is a terrorist.  However, the reason why the mainstream media doesn't call such a person a terrorist is often because they're known to be mentally ill, and the charges pressed against them are murder or gross bodily harm, not a law that relates to terrorism as such.  Thus, the term 'terrorist' is deemed unreasonable by the educated journalists and editors for most respectable outlets.  It's a distinction that doesn't prevent us from saying they are indeed terrorists.  In the eyes of the law a mentally ill man killing a Labour politician and he is influenced by far-right ideas, although those ideas didn't call for murder, he is not a terrorist as such.  The dictionary seems to disagree.  

We now have a story in the press that states a man who was closely linked to the hate group, Black Lives Matter, had killed law enforcement officers in the belief that he was justified to do so.  There is a large amount of footage of young, often middle-class and wealthy, black college students in the United States, chanting 'kill the police', while regularly blaming any and every white cop for violence that most of them have no part in.  They try to provoke violence in protests, yelling at cops, in a few minors cases even reaching for their guns, not a clever idea, and physically assaulting people.  Oh, and claiming that Black people cannot be racist.  

 

The conundrum you need to figure out is why lefties think BLM murderers, who are directly inspired to act by ideologies that demand violence, should not be called terrorists while they plead for the right-wing versions to have that label.  Surely, if a man from a right-wing neo-nazi belief is a terrorist, then so is a man from another extreme group that has actually chant for violence.  

If you can't see a double standard by arguing the point that white right-wing mental cases are terrorists and black ones who are meant to be on the left are not, then you may be confused.

Black Lives Matter are a group that wants to spread it's opinion that black people are oppressed, they bleed lies into the minds of newly political young people, and claim whenever a black man dies it's due to the police being full of racists.  They use selected data, much like any Klan would, to fool enough people, unlike the KKK and Neo-Nazi groups they focus on marxism and other selected views, because collectivist reasoning means a rich black student living on daddy's money can still claim his is a victim.  They play professional victimhood as their game, inciting violence and creating conflict, so they can share their clip of a cop fighting back after being punched and call it evidence of all they claim to be true, even though they edit out the ten minutes of getting toe to toe and hitting the police officer.  After all, how you can create good propaganda if you don't make things up.  

Real crimes against black people don't happen on camera so much, so to fill this gap they will create what they need to demand that society sees all black people as victims, that in any crime a person of pale skin must be wrong, and if it isn't done they get more recruits on many college campuses, mostly because from a slanted perspective it looks like oppression.  It's only when you don't look from an ideology, instead looking at the facts as objectively as you can, that you will see that major of BLM claims are nonsense or huge exaggerations.  And, I need not state the obvious trouble of real world racism to make clear that making up claims and exaggerating are not practical tools for a rational discussion.  

For anyone who thinks they know better than me, you may be right, 

but let us consider the facts before all things.