Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/12/10 11:17 PM, adrshepard wrote: Go for it. Just pray you don't get into a collision with my SUV and have your teeny car launched into orbit.
It's got to be the best car to destroy in a riot. You'd only need a couple twelve year olds to tip it over.

When your SUV hits another SUV, there's significantly more energy in the impact, simple velocity mathematics. When his little toy car hits my little toy car, the damage is significantly less. If everyone who didn't absolutely have to have these massive gas guzzling garbage heaps would move to smaller cars, then it wouldn't be dangerous to drive the smaller cars. It's a pathetic case of 'I won't update x to work with y because y isn't practical since it's not compatible with x'. You're the exact reason small cars aren't safe, we'd all be safer if small cars were the only ones on the road. I include mass delivery trucks in that, since I prefer trains as a method of transfer over any distance.
Also, if you're involved in and sticking around riots constantly you probably deserve to have your car dinged up a bit.

As for the original poster, there's a lot of things contributing to overuse and underdistribution of resources. You're hyperfocusing your argument and it's just making you look silly and uneducated. Widen your view, admit that McDonald's and Walmart aren't the only greedy wasteful companies and that the average American is just as wasteful on our own smaller scales and you might get some real credibility.

At 5/10/10 07:12 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 5/10/10 06:53 PM, squidly wrote:

Do we REALLY need that much paper, guys, seriously?

Yeah, probably.
What are would we write on?

i hurd bout diz rly gr8 thing calld computurz dat i believe u just used 2 write dat

What are would grammar nazis be without fucktards such as yourself?

I fully agree with OP, something has to be done soon, or not the next generation, but WE will have BIG problems ( due to collapse in food chain and crops, lack of food, just to give an example of one of the bad things that could happen ) and we will have do something soon, stopping fishing on a lot of endangered fish and mandatory recycling are just a few of the possiblities.

At 5/13/10 01:01 AM, StodgyAyatollah wrote: Unfortunately science doesn't work that way. There is evidence that STRONGLY suggests it but since you want absolute indisputable proof you're out of luck on that one, and just about everything else we've learned from science over the years.

Where is this evidence? Give me something to work with so I can point out how the health effects only affect a minority of people or require a lifetime of unusually high consumption to show up.

It's because of the massive amount of inbreeding that's present in the industry today. Cattle are becoming a less genetically viable species because of it.

Oh, I see. How quickly it changes from "dead species" to "less genetically viable species."

At 5/13/10 05:32 PM, adrshepard wrote: Where is this evidence? Give me something to work with so I can point out how the health effects
only
affect a minority of people or require a lifetime of unusually high consumption to show up.

Making me do work now, damn it. As I mentioned earlier I prefer the library but I'll try to find some links so you can get an idea of what I'm talking about. Also I'm not limiting the health risks to consuming modern meat, it goes a bit further than that. If I claimed that eating it alone was a huge health risk that would be untrue, to some extent, and I wouldn't really give much of a damn then. I will warn you that since this is the internet some of these links will probably contain some hippy BS so please feel free to disregard that. The big three issues that combine to make this an issue worth being aware of are consumer health, pollution, and disease. Consumer health is a fairly small aspect of it and when I said "it's slowly killing you" it would have been more accurate for me to say that the modern meat industry is slowly killing us all, so I apologize, I could have worded that better. Anyway here are a few links, sorry I don't have the time to point out the specifics in them but I did skim through as much as I could to make sure they contained relevant material and I tried to leave out as much hippy BS as I could. I'm sure I could find a lot better but frankly I don't care if you believe it or not and I just don't have the time to waste trying to convince anybody about anything here on the NG forums.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/dis playFulltext?type=1&fid=631296&jid=PHN&v olumeId=8&issueId=04&aid=582640
http://hhoffman.wordpress.com/2009/03/05 /meat-consumption-research-part-5/
http://www.jhsph.edu/bin/i/l/animal_feed .pdf
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Toxic/fa ctoryfarm.cfm
http://www.jhsph.edu/bin/s/y/Slaughterho useBlues.pdf
http://www.organicconsumers.org/toxic/br utalmeat.cfm
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/
A0701E00.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/enterics/publications /383_crump_2002.pdf
And I'm sure if you do a search here you'll find plenty of crap.
http://www.fao.org/

Oh, I see. How quickly it changes from "dead species" to "less genetically viable species."

It may have been an exaggeration but it was meant to be eye catching and judging from your response I think it served that purpose well. Plus they will be a "dead species" if action isn't taken to prevent it, so I don't think it's too far of a stretch.

At 5/13/10 09:32 AM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: As for the original poster, there's a lot of things contributing to overuse and underdistribution of
resources. You're hyperfocusing your argument and it's just making you look silly and uneducated.
Widen your view, admit that McDonald's and Walmart aren't the only greedy wasteful companies and
that the average American is just as wasteful on our own smaller scales and you might get some
real credibility.

Agreed. I would also say that we are not actually at a "tipping point", things are not exactly that simple. I would say that we are in a time of transition, witch we always are. If you look you will see that a lot of good progress is being made on some issues while other things are getting worse and that's the way things usually are. Still it's not going to stop me from preparing for the end of civilization as we know it.

I am glad that people are becoming more aware of things like this and I was at first hoping this was going to be a topic about a political system which would be a lot easier to stop in its tracks, but it is something with the environment. Global warming would not flood the entire world, it would probably not kill more than 100,000,000 people, but forever damage us anyway.

At 5/10/10 10:19 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:

At 5/10/10 09:23 PM, adrshepard wrote: I don't see the downside. I've eaten those chickens, cows, and pigs living in cramped conditions for the past 23 years, and I tell you, they are delicious.

If you knew exactly how they were made and what kind of chemicals go into them, like growth hormones, I bet you'd think otherwise. Same with their exact living conditions, unless you don't care about animal rights. Read Fast Food Nation and watch Super Size Me. They give plenty of insight. There's a special feature on the Super Size Me DVD that compares how McDonald's food breaks down on its own versus food from a regular restaurant. I have to wonder what exactly McDonald's puts in their fries in order to keep them from breaking down for so long.

Holy shit, McDonalds are like the evilest bastards to walk the earth, OMFG.

But in all seriousness, I have seen Super Size Me, and generally it is nothing more than some wannabe liberal jackass who thinks that McDonalds is evil because they offer burgers and fries to hungry customers. Yes, I am well aware that Mickey D's isn't exactly 100% organic in any of its food, but they way you say about growth hormones and shit, It sounds like you're accusing them of chemical warfare.

Are you saying you are against making food cheaper and more available to those with less income?

It seems to me that you're against making food cheaper, or your argument is somewhat misguided.

Um, eating fast food on a daily or weekly basis is not a way to stay healthy. It can be dangerous, even causing death.

No shit, Captain Obvious! How long did it take you to find that out?

That should be common sense. In the US, obesity and being overweight is the second leading preventable cause of death, with smoking as number one. Poor people should not eat it that much. There are alternatives, like shelters that serve healthy food.

I'm trying not to be a jerk here, but your claims are largely based off of opinions and second-hand knowledge. If you are going after something like Mickey D's or something, try to use facts in your argument instead of trying to sound like a moral hardass with your opinions. And besides, most families don't say, "Let's go eat at the shelter", espcially if they don't want to eat next to a crazy, shank toting bum.

Because here in Nova Scotia we have been recycling glass & plastic bottles ,cans, juice containers (cardboard or plastic) & you go to a recycle place & they pay you for each container...you rarely see an empty one on the roads or anywhere for that matter.
When I first went to Florida about 6 or 7 years ago, I was staggered by the amount of emptiy bottles & cans along the highways. Remember that Florida has more people in it than all of Canada... I thought, HELL why are we even bothering to recycle when you look at this place ! But whether it helps or not, our road ways have paper & cardboard containers, but aren't filled with bottles & cans !

Sorry I forgot about this thread.

At 5/13/10 10:16 PM, StodgyAyatollah wrote: ...Consumer health is a fairly small aspect of it and when I said "it's slowly killing you" it would have been more accurate for me to say that the modern meat industry is slowly killing us all, so I apologize, I could have worded that better.

Ok, though that was the only aspect I was really concerned about. I'm not denying that there are environmental risks and dangers in raising livestock.

Anyway here are a few links, sorry I don't have the time to point out the specifics in them but I did skim through as much as I could to make sure they contained relevant material and I tried to leave out as much hippy BS as I could.

Unfortunately, most of your work was for nothing. I recently had to delete Acrobat Reader because acrobtrd32.exe would run every once in a while and download one of those nasty windows anti-virus look-alike programs. So I can't read pdfs anymore. I did think the risk of antibiotic immunity through meat consumption was interesting.

It may have been an exaggeration but it was meant to be eye catching and judging from your response I think it served that purpose well. Plus they will be a "dead species" if action isn't taken to prevent it, so I don't think it's too far of a stretch.

That's true, though it seems to me that the solution is pretty straightforward (expand the breeding stock through artificial insemination).

At 5/20/10 02:13 PM, orangebomb wrote: Holy shit, McDonalds are like the evilest bastards to walk the earth, OMFG.

But in all seriousness, I have seen Super Size Me, and generally it is nothing more than some wannabe liberal jackass who thinks that McDonalds is evil because they offer burgers and fries to hungry customers.

Where in the documentary did Spurlock say he's a liberal and that McDonald's is evil? His 30 day experiment had to do with a lawsuit filed against McDonald's over the claims that two teenage girls became obese from eating its food. The lawsuit was eventually dismissed by the judge mainly because the girls failed to show that eating its food caused their "injuries". Spurlock, on the other hand, showed all the negative aspects of his diet. He also acknowledged while his diet was extreme, there are people who eat this food regularly. One in four Americans visits a fast food restaurant everyday. Maybe Spurlock's diet wasn't that extreme. Besides, the documentary also deals with corporate and personal responsibility, dietary education, school lunches, etc. If you really watched it, maybe you should watch it again.

Yes, I am well aware that Mickey D's isn't exactly 100% organic in any of its food, but they way you say about growth hormones and shit, It sounds like you're accusing them of chemical warfare.

There's a British study about how "McDonald's restaurants are loaded with controversial chemicals, including some known to cause behavioural problems." I wasn't accusing them of chemical warfare, but I'm questioning what goes in the food. I briefly covered that on the first page, about ten posts from the bottom.

No shit, Captain Obvious! How long did it take you to find that out?

I know it's obvious. I was responding to someone who wrote, as you quoted, "Are you saying you are against making food cheaper and more available to those with less income?" So, I didn't know if he knew it was obvious.

I'm trying not to be a jerk here, but your claims are largely based off of opinions and second-hand knowledge. If you are going after something like Mickey D's or something, try to use facts in your argument instead of trying to sound like a moral hardass with your opinions. And besides, most families don't say, "Let's go eat at the shelter", espcially if they don't want to eat next to a crazy, shank toting bum.

I was referring to poor families. Of course, they don't have to do that. It's just an alternative. If they have enough money, they could, as bcdemon wrote, buy the right food and cook it themselves.

Since you're claiming I'm just using opinions, go ahead and counteract the obesity and smoking stats, as well as the unhealthiness of McDonald's food.