The point is, if you're a die-hard vegan that cannot condone supporting eating meat in any way, you have no business adopting a dog or a cat.

I agree. I don't plan on getting a pet at all once I move out. Seeing as how I do live in a household with pets, though, it's still a relevant subject to me.

No, my pets don't live on vegan diets.

Quote from: Verbatim on September 02, 2016, 08:28:05 AM

the point is that people can't live off the current MW, and that's a problem.

The minimum wage has nothing to do with some arbitrarily defined standard of living, and everything to do with the given size of a low-income labour market.

If people don't have enough money to live, the solution is to have government give them money, not raise the cost employers face to hiring them.

So, welfare, like we already have.

Just out of curiosity, because I can't be assed to read the rest of the thread, how many vegans/vegetarians here would be fine with consuming meat in a non-industrialized society? That is, if meat products weren't mass produced, and we weren't wrecking the environment, would you eat a pork chop?

Nope, for the same exact reason I wouldn't eat a person.

Just for the record, I am on your side. It saddens me to watch this beautiful world be destroyed -- I want to save Earth and have us all live a sustainable lifestyle. But it's just not possible, and we are screwed no matter what at this point.

I actually agree.

Am I gonna drop everything and starting eating meat again because of that, though?
Am I gonna stop being an advocate?

Of course not.

I mean, I don't like her vernacular either, but she's right.

Most of those creatures that we brutally harvest are doped up on drugs, and would destroy ecosystems (on top of not being able to survive) if released into the wild.

No one's saying to release them. The ones in the farms should probably be mercy killed.

What's an example of a game which does not have a normal difficulty, or at least some kind of default?

Guitar Hero/Rock Band is usually the first example I think of. There's easy, medium, hard, and expert--but that game is unique in the sense that the "proper" way to play it would be to start at easy and work yourself up to expert. Once you can play every song on expert, there's very little reason to play anything easier.

Keep in mind that this thread isn't to be taken too seriously. I just really like pissing people off with my opinions.

I cannot think of why reason 1 would be considered correct.

There are many, but perhaps the biggest reason is that console is where all the best games are.

I have disagreements with reasons 3 and 4. One size does not necessarily fit all with controls, nor should it. If a player's personal, subjective control biases enable them to experience the intentions of the developer, those controls have served their purpose to the game. They should not be homogenized.

Personally, I like to play on a game's default settings no matter what--even if it's uncomfortable. The way I see it, if the developer wanted me to play with x control scheme, they would've made that the default control scheme--but they didn't, so, in my opinion, that should be respected. If I've already beaten the game once, then I can start experimenting with other control schemes.

However, if it's something like a fighting game, then you should be able to map the controls however you want. Tournaments allow you to do this.

As for no mods I only see the argument that they're not representative of the experience the developers made, but improvements to that formula can be made to make the experience more enjoyable to the player

That's only if all you care about is enjoyment--in which case, there's really no fixing that. I don't necessarily play games just to have fun. That seems very base to me.

or perhaps a different set of mechanics improves other aspects of the game the designers wanted to convey, but didn't;or those areas the designers didn't even think of which present novel ways of expanding on their content in the future.

To me, when a developer releases a game, it's like submitting a test. What you got wrong is what you got wrong, and there's no turning back once you've already handed in your paper.

I'm surprised you didn't add a 6.) Legally

Figured it was implied by #1.

YouTube

I'm gonna have to come back to this later, but give me one reason why I should take this... random fucking person seriously.

Veganism is pointless, anyway. Yeah, there is something good in the idea, but it's impossible to make billions of humans change and make any lasting impact. That's why I stopped. Why should I try when nobody else is going to bother?

Yeah, when has a large group of people EVER made a change for the better in society?

Also I loathe people that use it as some kind of moral high ground in an attempt to feel superior to others.

You only loathe it because we DO have the moral high ground.

We ARE superior to you. And that makes you feel all bad and guilty inside.

I could live off of potatoes for the rest of my life, but that doesn't mean it's good for me. Same goes for dogs, they could live off of it, but it's not the best for them.

I don't give a fuck what's "good" for you. Veganism isn't about health, it's about what's right.

In your mind yes, but to everyone else meat is just fine.

Because you're evil and retarded, yes.

Yes the term in generally used in a practice of sorts, grammatically, scientifically, mathematically

Are you saying biology isn't a practice?

Are you seriously this du--Well, yes, you are, but sometimes I just find it really hard to believe. It's people like you that make me ponder whether I'm really living in some kind of deranged simulation or not, because GODDAMN, you just can't be fucking real.

http://rawfed.com/myths/omnivores.html

Give me one reason why I should take this random source seriously.

Because I'm not.

The article even contradicts itself in the first paragraph: "...they can survive on an omnivorous diet..."

That means they're omnivores. If you can survive on an omnivorous diet, you're an omnivore.

Sure some can adapt, but a high majority dont because they arent meant to.

No evidence.

Also Biology and illiteracy, you actually put those two together and expect me to take you seriously?

It's a common phrase that is used by literally everyone. "Scientifically illiterate" is one of the most common turns-of-phrase ever, but because we're talking about biology, I changed it to fit the context. Which is perfectly acceptable in all languages. Try reading a fucking book for once. Maybe you'll get a nice grammar lesson out of it.

And what you call a carnivore 'thriving' on an vegetarian diet is what I call 'surviving'

Dogs aren't carnivores, you biologically illiterate kid. They're omnivores. They can eat and live off of anything as long as it's nutritious.

No this isn't about the health of an animal, it's about a vegan taking a social stand.

Who gives a fuck.

Quote from: Verbatim on September 01, 2016, 11:43:23 PM

He's right about basically fucking everything, minus his falling for the wage gap meme. His platform was magnificent and near-flawless.

Literally the only way you can think this Verb is by being wilfully ignorant of economics and how his side of the platform approached it.

None of his economics policies would've come to fruition--he would have to compromise.

A compromised slice of Bernie magic is still magnificent. No $15 minimum wage? Okay, fine, let's do $10 first. Still not okay? Let's come up with methods for a gradual increase, because the point is that people can't live off the current MW, and that's a problem.