/ck/ - Food & Cooking

I can already tell by just looking at the picture it's a smear piece with an agenda.

This topic interest me as well, but shows done like this just feel like they think their audience is a bunch of complete morons.

>>4675873
>think their audience is a bunch of complete morons
The majority of people are clueless when it comes to where their food comes from, surveys have shown that every time. So many people actually think the logos on beef and milk with smiling cows on a green pasture with a red barn in the background are realistic representations of meat production.

>>4675873
The American public IS a bunch of morons

>>4675871
>me ever since I read "The Jungle" back in high school.

you know that book is FICTION, right?

>>4675889
To be fair, in dairy production there are a lot of farms still like that. Factory farms are not monopolies on the dairy industry at least (and I'm sure not on the entire meat industry either).
Manufacturing/distribution plants however are quite different.


Still, I would like TV shows that don't cater to the lowest common denominator. It's why I pretty much only watch history/information/nature/documentary shows, cartoons, and (of course) select food programs.

>>4675895
The info on meatpacking in The Jungle was written by an investigative journalist. No way can you call that part fiction. It caused an uproar, and a lot of industry changes for a reason.

>>4675900
Small farms are only a tiny percent of total meat and dairy production, though. They exist, but it's like how the amount of clothing handmade by fashion designers with nice lives is insignificant compared to the amount of clothes made in sweatshops in third world countries.

You can either cram your cows and chickens into tiny, barley-sanitized spaces and butcher them in a cold, efficient manner in order to save on costs, meet your quota and keep the price of meat down...

...or you can treat them nice and friendly and keep everything perfectly sterilized with each little hen and cow getting their own space and free roaming everywhere with special food and shit while charging your customer double at the marketplace.

I know where my food comes from, and I know how awful those places can be. I've seen the documentaries constantly pumped out by 'muh animal rights' people my entire life.
..I honestly just can't give a shit.

>>4675908

It's widely known that the book was based on real observations, but the book itself is fiction. "Based on reality" isn't the same thing as reality.

And yes, it did result in a lot of industry changes--but that doesn't mean the book isn't fiction.

>>4675914
It was a fictional story filled with elements of non-fiction about the meat packing industry. And industry whose products killed more American troops during the American-Cuban War(the one that made Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders famous) than the Cubans did.

>>4675920

Agreed.

Well, except for the part about the meat industry killing people during the Spanish-American war. That's a bit inaccurate. The problems with rations during that war were improper canning techniques and bad logistics. The Commissary General of Subsistence, Brigadier General Charles P. Eagan, bought far more food than was needed by the soldiers. The food just sat in storage, rotting, before it could be issued to the troops.

I'm not saying there weren't (and aren't) problems with the meat industry--but it's inaccurate to blame them for things that they didn't do.

>>4675873
>being this deluded

I've worked at a slaughter house for about 2 months (I quite when I started to dream about the place). If you took a video of anything going on there you and people like you would instantly think, "I can already tell by just looking at the picture it's a smear piece with an agenda." because it really is pretty bad.

I mean it looks bad because it is bad. It looks like a smear piece with an agenda because the instant you see it you start thinking, "is this shit for real? Naw, they must be playing it up." It is real and they are not playing it up. It is that bad.

>>4675912
Or, you can grow and raise your own food like I do and skip all that shit completely.

>>4675958
No, because it clearly is a smear piece with an agenda. Usually the ones that try to balance it out has former workers, allegations, AND representatives from the meat company, regulatory agencies, and scientific study. Just like the opposite if meat industry shills were the only ones being interviewed then it would just be half truth propaganda. This is going to be half-truth sensationalism.

Bias is bias.

>>4675975
Sorry I don't have enough land to raise my own cattle and pigs.

>>4675873
But that photo is accurate. I've been to chicken farms and some(all the ones I've been to that aren't were all small scale) are like that. The meat industry really is NOT pretty. That said I still eat meat

And yeah, it's a smear piece with an agenda, too -they're pissed about their photog being arrested by some paranoid fuckwits.. But they don't need to exaggerate the truth because the truth is pretty fucking disgusting.
>>4675958
I don't mind visiting a slaughterhouse but fuck I wouldn't want to work there.

Vegan agenda samefagging thread from "different" perspectives again, nothing to see here folks. No matter what they tell you their main argument is animals should be treated as well as humans, which is false.

>>4675990
To clear things up, I'm talking about the article photo of the former worker in sunglasses and a hat, like a nat geo "inside gang underworld" shit.

>"I don't give a fuck about animals, fuck them, only I am important. I like how they taste so fuck everybody, muh food"

Meanwhile in another thread

>"Oh, so you're a vegan huh?! What do you think, you're better than me just because you do things that make you a better person?! Fuck you! Obnoxious, preachy faggot! So smug!"

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside-secret-america/videos/hidden-camera-investigation/

I want one of these shows to cover the length and breadth of the industry. Some chickens are treated like shit, some are treated well, and I'd prefer advice on how to tell the two apart rather than several hours of vegan buttfrustration.

>>4676025
that vid is pretty disturbing
but still loving meat

>>4676035
This.

I rather them add some info on how to support the farmers who are doing it humanely rather than denounce all meat.

boe hoe hoe

my meat has feelings

abloobloobloo

go fuck yourself animal eco-hippie and faggot vegerabbit friends, if it tastes good I'll fucking eat it

>>4676046
Find a local farm.
Take a look around.
Pay out the ass.

>>4675912
It's bigger than that, ignorantnigga. There is absolutely no argument that mass pest/herbicides/hormones pumped into our food does not harm us or is neutral in anyway. No way. Ever. There is also no arguing that it is the only way to sustain our wasteful, bingeful, and greedy nature. I wish we could cut back a little bit, especially when stores EXPECT to lose large portions to spoiling and not being sold. It's almost like when our parents told us every spoonful counts, or don't pile your plate when you know you can't eat that much. It's a simple and selfish attitude to think
>you can afford to waste as much as you want
>deadly chemicals won't affect you directly
>it doesn't matter how are food gets to us or in us

Shame. But that is the difference between the mature, thinking mind and the child's selfish mind.

>>4676096
the problem isn't that the meat has feelings
the problem is that the meat is disgusting as fuck

>>4676119
Yeah, better to buy shit meat.

>>4676096
Dude, watch that edge!

most people don't have any idea what really goes on in factory farms and animal testing.
i went to school to be a vet tech and went to the university animal research center. i thought i was tough shit i wouldn't be worried. but these dogs with stuff strapped to their chests who cowered in fear made me have a panic attack. even the most legal stuff that is done is horrific. no one can stop it.

>>4676144
cry more pussyfaggot and go hug some guinea pigs

>>4676139
So most people would say. I can get pork for $2 a pound at the supermarket, or pay $10+ at a farm.

Economy of scale makes factory farming cheap - not ethical, but cheap.

Great, another meat industry expose aimed at raising the price of food for poor people so hipsters and vegans can feel good about themselves.

don't care

>>4676165
not too long ago there was a big fuss about chickens and especially egg farming where I live

all that did was destroy the supply of eggs from stores for a month or two (they were almost always out or there wasn't much to choose from) and raise the price about 70% so some faggots could get their feelgoods and the industry and stores get more money

>>4676213
Chickens are about as retarded as animals can get. They're closer to insects than genuinely intelligent animals like pigs.

I'm not sure what's more disgusting to me, the extremely selective editing and imposing of conclusions that always takes place in this kind of media, the overcrowded conditions on some farms, or the overwhelming positive spin vegans and animal welfare retards manage to maintain on the internet. Just typing it out made me realize that the last one is the most disturbing to me. All the people constantly going off about SHOW THE TRUTH bullshit work tirelessly at putting a positive spin on their own agendas, no matter how much it obscures the truth.
>TL:DR yet another BS activist movement spearheaded by hypocritical assholes

>you will never be a photographer for national geographic going to exotic places and fuck girls from different ethnics

>>4676247
Is there like a sexual spinoff of national geographic? like national pornographic? Just going around documenting sex all over the globe.

>>4676251
>national pornographic

I'd watch that...srs'ly.

>>4676251
Ya, it's called National Geographic.

Seriously, they had a whole issue on how some random tribe in Africa mated. Floppy tits everywhere.

>>4676257
>all kinds of info about sexual habits and mating rituals of different people and their sexual culture and known sex-related history
>popular positions in the region
>bigger specials about stuff like Kama Sutra and japanese love hotels and whatnots
>white host guy of the show hitting on brown "wild" women

>in the natural world, animals must kill to survive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcnH_TOqi3I

>>4676299
But you aren't killing your own food and raising meat for slaughter =/= hunting.

>>4676299
>pretending you are just like a wild animal hunting its prey

GB2/fur/

>>4676124
Nice strawman.

Cry more vegfag.

>>4676310
Not everyone can do that you fucking retard. It's not feasible in this day and age. There wouldn't be enough suitable land for everyone.

>>4675912
That is why I prefer farmer's market connections. It insures excellent quality food granted you do have to pay more. At least you get healthier and better tasting food which is why I don't complain.

>>4676345
To be honest, you do pay a lot more, but it's still sustainable for it's market. Nothing beats keeping costs down like keeping waste down. We plant and slaughter more because we know such a huge amount is wasted and people will select only the nicest looking produce/meats. Knowing that so much goes to waste, we make more than we could possibly hope to consume, and we are obese as fuck to begin with. When you can't get a pig to eat all of it's food, you're giving it too much food. We've even become desensitized to taste and quality to where plastic wrapped crap packs are chosen time and again to real food. This. This is the progress we evolved for millions of years to see? Yeah, no.

+1 for FM. there are plenty of them around me that are competitive price-wise with chain stores, and for the product itself, you can't beat that. Save for doing it yourself...

>>4675871
THIS
IS
/ck/
>kicks OP as he shatters into thousands of pieces, back into /pol/. Where he shall remain, until he is, complete again.

>>4676014
>"I don't give a fuck about animals, fuck them, only I am important. I like how they taste so fuck everybody, muh food"
Nobody's saying that.
People are saying 2 things
1. This is an exaggerated smear campaign
2. Animals have different perception to humans. Being confined to a small area is torture for a human but doesn't bother a chicken so long as they're fed and kept from predators

>>4676154
>you don't know how much food animals suffer in legally mandated industry
>I've seen pet animals that have been abused

>>4675991
why is it false?

>>4676154
>no one can stop it.

Not with that attitude they can't.

>>4676944
Because animals aren't humans. Also humans are omnivorous and "top predators", which a lot of vegan conjecture seems to ignore.

>>4676946
lol, you sound like a retarded soccer mom

"Hey, no one can stop the tides form rolling in and out"
"Not with that attitude they can't!"

>>4676957
Okay, but what does that have to do with anything involving ethics.

>>4676973
Quite numerous factors if you would actually care to think rationally. Just like stepping on grass isn't ethical to each individual blade, but at the end of the day it's fucking grass.

>>4676979
What? you're confused. Ethics isn't the field of doing what's best for some random individual, certainly there are very few ethical systems which privilege grass blades.

>>4676944
Because animals have different physical and psychological differences.

First article of the universal declaration of human rights
>All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
most animals lack reason and conscience and only pack animals act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Crabs are a hilarious example of this. The only thing stopping a crab from escaping a crab cage is the other crabs dragging it back in with them. They are actively working against eachother

Dolphins are one such animal that I believe should be protected, along with the food chain they depend on. Cows not so much, especially since the cow's place in the food chain is between human-made feed and humans

>>4676997
>First article of the universal declaration of human rights
don't get me started with the problems of that piece of crap ethics.

>>4676998
seems I already have.
Continue, please.

>>4676985
Ethics is a vague term for a standard of morality. Different systems of ethics can range from righteous to butt fucking retarded.


For example, treating livestock like a human being is one of the latter.

Lol @ all the industry-peddlers in this thread. Enjoy having your body pumped full of delicious hormones and antibiotics just so you can eat something tasty and look manly! Nothing manlier than candida, right?

>>4677004
no, ethics is a field which concerns itself with understanding the good.

>>4677004
you dumb shit. we don't have to dress them up in three-piece suits and tophats, just treat them as the sensitive, conscious beings they are.

>>4677016
Yes, with a bullet or bolt to the head/heart. Or severing the corotid artery.

As opposed to tackling it, ripping it's stomach apart, biting it's ass as it tries to escape from that, then consuming it alive while it moos on the ground.

>what is nature

>>4677016
But they're not, so why bother?

>>4677001
well half of them are rights which exist only by dint of belonging to civilization, which is to say civil rights, not rights which issue inherently from being human.

Most are so vague as to be meaningless, but just empty affirmations that "bad things shouldn't happen to people".

And beyond that it argues they are inalienable when they're clearly not. Rights such as freedom of movement can be alienated by way of lawful imprisonment. And frankly the concept of a right to life makes no sense as we only have rights so long as we are living.

>>4677028
so you'd have no complaints if i were to put a bolt through your thick skull? take your biological teleology and shove it up your ass, ya cunt!

>>4677029
so there's this new thing called neuroscience...

>>4677052
Yeah so new as to say nothing of merit.

>>4677047
Yes, if I was livestock like a pig or steer, and not a human being.

I'm sorry, you must be a fucking moron.

>>4677056
Have you been a pig or steer before that you can be so sure in that?

enjoy your murdered flesh. so glad I decided to stop that shit a year ago. fucking savages. you know the reason Joaquin Phoenix, Natalie Portman, Bill Clinton and hundreds of other sophisticated, rich, high-class people don't eat murdered animals? It's because they're better than you. Not trolling either. Once you realize that eating meat is the equivalent of our great ancestors performing ritualistic, human sacrifice... You'll fully understand. It will click. You have no excuse if you're a parent. You have no excuse if you're a dog owner or cat owner. Because with your kid and your pets, you've already admitted to me that you understand the value of mammalian life. What separates a dog from a cow? Surely it isn't intelligence? What separates a pig from a cat? Is it cool to eat a cow's baby? Or a pig's baby? Would it be alright to eat your kid? Do you not think that animals love their offspring?
Fucking murderer. Would not hang with you. I would moo for the entirety of dinner if I had to eat at the same table as you.
Moooooooooooooooo. MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. You're eating a walking animal you fuck.

>>4677061
five star post, right here

>>4676801
Get out.

>>4677061
delicious pasta

>>4677059
>not knowing what livestock or domesticated animals are
>not known that animals eat other animals

Yup, you're retarded. Go take a history or biology class.

>>4677056
you little bitch. maybe i'll chop you up and eat you, we'll see who the apex predator is then.

>>4677073
>thinking any of that is relevant
You're clearly the retarded one. Seriously why do you think any of that matters to anything being discussed?

>>4677061
Personally I have eaten dog and would probably try cat too.
Doesn't stop me from loving my boxer, or my rabbit for that matter.

Also cats are what we in biology refer to as 'obligate carnivores', meaning they absolutely require meat to live

>>4677083
Because of the basic concept in biology as organism classification.

Do you choose to forget grade school science, or are you just seriously that stupid?


Not to mention maybe even looking into a 60 second summary of human history, but I think that concepts of basic education must be beyond your grasp.

>>4677016
No. I don't give a shit about them, and I'm not going to.

>>4677090
Well, mostly. It is theoretically possible to use science to synthesize the necessary nutritional requirements for even an obligate carnivore using SCIENCE. Not really energy or cost effective, but still.

>>4677081
We're the same species, lrn2basic education dipshit.

>inb4 unrelated conjecture about cannibalism that has nothing to do with predator behavior

>>4677091
>Because of the basic concept in biology as organism classification.
What? classifications are just a matter of convention there isn't inherent truth in nature that is being uncovered by means of taxonomic labels.


Seriously why do you keep appealing to history too? How is that an argument for anything?

You realize the topic at hand is ethics, biology and history may support a position but only insofar as the metaethical framework is already defined.

>>4677093
>implying the meat industry is even close to approaching sustainability

>>4677097
You want to talk about basic nature? What the fuck are predators.


And yes, thank you for saying biology and history support my position. Also any ethics other than whackjob vegan ethic systems also support the consumption of meat.


Sage because your posts would get you laughed out of anywhere that fact or reason means more than sensationalism or politics.

>>4677105
>You want to talk about basic nature?
No i don't why the fuck would I? Nature is not the arbiter of good and bad retard. Its just nature. It doesn't actually mean anything. Maybe you believe that God came down perfectly arranged nature in some righteous manner that man is beholden to, but then you're a retard.

>>4677095
oh jesus pancake eating christ. you have got to be the most pseudo-intellectual ignoramus on 4chan, please fuck off

>>4677112
>nature doesn't mean anything
>the metric standard of our biological system doesn't mean anything

Go to bed.

>>4677117
My god you are either the worst ethicist known to man or a troll of uncanny skill.

>>4677104
>>implying any human venture at this point is sustainable.
Man vegans are dumb. they look at the people who are going to be alive soon and say "we should stop eating meat." with little awareness that not long after we will need to stop eating all together because we'll run out of arable land and top soil.

Why doesn't anyone say "We have too many people! no more kids!" ? because vegans are sluts and christfags are crazy quiverfull people and no one in india gives a fuck. Out of all the evil china has done, It's probably the only place that has a sane childrearing policy, maybe if they hadn't spend the last thousands of years multiplying so much they'd be able to effectively enforce it.

>>4677124
>implying ethicism isn't a fictitious pesudoscience branch of philosophy with no actual standard on definiton
>implying biology isn't a hard science

Go to bed you fucking tard.

>>4677125
The entire population of the world could live in a land mass just over the size of Texas and still have the population density of New York City.

The more you know...

>>4677130
>pesudoscience branch of philosophy
i don't think you understand what either pseudoscience or philosophy are otherwise you'd understand why that was the stupidest damn thing you could have possibly said.

>implying biology isn't a hard science
well it is and it isn't there are certainly places where the abstractions used lack rigor, mainly within taxonomy and dealing with the species problem. But beyond that, it doesn't matter because good and bad aren't scientific questions. You're arguing we're should to be something because we are. But that gets you nowhere. Its beyond stupid.

>>4677134
Do you think New York City is self-sustaining? Do you think they grow all their produce within the city limits?

>>4677140
ethicism - a doctrine that ethics and ethical ideas are valid and important; a conscious tendency to moralize.

biology - the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior.


I don't even have to go past a simple dictionary definition to argue against you. You are wrong, ignorant, and stupid all rolled up into one convenient retarded ball.

>>4677152
My god... I honestly believe you are that fucking deluded.

But here's on question biology cannot answer: how do you breathe with your head so far up your own ass?

>>4677146
That's well beyond the entire point, but if you want me to play your game:

Do you think that if we confined ourselves to the size of Texas that the rest of the usable land in the world couldn't grow enough crops/graze enough livestock/etc for us?

My only point was that we will eventually have to adapt to more sustainable eating habits, but we are far from the planet's carrying capacity.

>>4677158
lol, all you can fall back on is insults.

Face it you're wrong. Even a basic fucking dictionary definition proves you're wrong without even diving into the minutia.

Go to bed.

>>4677160
yeah, if we confined ourselves to the size of texas we would by definition not be outside of texas... so how do we grow and harvest things where we are not?

>>4677167
This is all rhetorical and you're taking it literally.

Instead of latching onto small things to try and rationalize your newly shaken up belief system, how about you either try to imagine the big picture or start research as to why your opposition is wrong instead of spouting knee jerk guesses.

>>4677166
>lol, all you can fall back on is insults.
says the deluded fucker who hasn't made a single cogent argument about what ought to be and has just focused on what has been as though it was somehow prescriptive.

The dictionary definition says nothing even close to meaningful and even if it did, its a fucking dictionary not the god of words, it doesn't actually prescribe meaning either.

That's the fucking problem with you, you keep looking to have this shit prescribed to you, to be written out in stone tablets or some shit, so you look at "nature" and dictionaries but that's just you being a fucktarded moron trying to find a god surrogate. Grow up. Stop trying to suck the dick of Christ's corpse. Is ain't ought, fuckwad.

>>4677189
>my arguments mean everything
>your petty arguments like biology, history, or the dictionary mean nothing

Holy shit, do you even think before you post?


I think it's way past your bedtime...

>>4676124
>There is absolutely no argument that mass pest/herbicides/hormones pumped into our food does not harm us
>there is no evidence that this isnt the case
>there is no evidence that god doesn't exist
>there is no evidence that dinosaurs are not all still alive in the deepest corners of earths jungles
>there is no evidence that there is not a hyper advanced civilization living under the surface of mars

you need to learn how evidence works, chump

>>4677173

That is a brilliantly myopic yet wholly presumptuous string of irrational thoughts...congratulations, I find you confounding but mostly confused.

>>4677200
My arguments have simply been that your arguments are presumptuous and retarded. You'll notice I have not been proferring an ethical position of my own. You're nothing but a 15 year old kid who thinks he's figured out the secret to the universe or something.

Well guess what there is no secret. nature, history, and biology are not telling you what to do. They are simply telling you what has happened. Grow the fuck up.

Your relentless pining for the absolute is pathetic. If you want to behave like that just up and say "lol god said man has dominion over the earth". Because that at least would have some bearing on the issue of what is right to do, even though it would still be completely retarded.

I hope you fuckwit hipsters/vegan/animal right shitheads don't drive up the price of meat. Fucking retards

>>4677204
Just a mere example of total population size and condensed density. You're the one incapable of comprehending what these two factors mean. It was just a colorful scenario that can be used to more easily relate large numbers.

Kind of like when you say a trillion dollars. Sure, you can say it's a million million dollars, but that's quite hard to conceptualize.

In other words, quit shifting the discussion from the main concept.

>>4677213
>lower demand
>higher price
You don't understand economics at all do you?

>>4677218
I think you don't understand what "demand" is. Hint not "desire"

>>4677212
oh my god, I'm laughing right now.

>you are presumptuous and retarded
>you are 15 years old
>grow the fuck up
>you're pathetic
>you are a literal bible believer

So this is what you spout when facts aren't on your side? I guess it's pretty hard to come up with a coherent argument when biology, history, and even the dictionary are against everything you've been posting for the last hour or so...


Anyways, it's been nice getting the better of you, I will take my own advice (which I still am giving you) to say:

Go to bed.

>>4677216

whoa...back the truck up; not the samefag. I just perused your pseudo-intellectual post and wanted to give you a little gravity. Those comments that proceeded and followed aren't winning the argument nor making your position any stronger, in reality your grasping, futile efforts are only an insult to yourself.

why don't you just take a minute and calm your shit down and think about what you are saying?

Why don't people just learn to grow their own food?

>>4677241

thanks for the input, hippy but, that's not how the world works for people with real jobs.

>>4677216
The problem is that the example is deeply flawed and deceptive. It implies that if we just moved everyone the state of texas the WHOLE rest of the world would suddenly be available for growing as though the only thing taking up land is people living there.

We'd still need cash crops, textiles, we still need the industry.

And its also based on this idea of the earth as having some constant "carrying capacity" ignoring things like the depletion of the North American Aquifers, just like the sahara expanded due to over farming ages ago, land can be used up.

Its a completely deceptive and retarded little example.

>>4677223
I on the other hand am not laughing, I am lamenting for the human race. You are completely deluded.

>>4677248
>that's not how the world works for people with real jobs
I don't see how this has to do with anything. You can literally start producing your own food by buying a kit, putting it together, flipping a switch, and harvesting whenever you are hungry. Unless you are too busy to pick a few berries out of a bush, then you have no excuse not to do it.

>>4677255
yup, a few berries, sounds like a healthy balanced diet full of variety and flavor to me

>>4677260
You can always grow more varieties if you wish.

>>4677241
I planted some cabbages yesterday. The problem is cities: I'm not allowed to raise chickens, and I'm certainly not allowed to slaughter them myself.

>>4677250
But to each old problem we are finding new solutions.

For example, I'm sure if the water tables become impractical then desalinization plants would pop up and distribute water on a massive scale. Not to mention all of the agriculture technologies that are being developed.

It's hard to predict civilization as a whole's future based on the past.

>>4677265
Of course, but by that logic we may as well simply declare the carrying capacity of the earth infinite because "i'm sure something will pop up eventually"

>>4677255

It's not economically viable. I make X amount of money per hour for my specialization; and it would take me Y amount of hours to grow food. Given this, if X is greater then Y it wouldn't make any sense for me to lose money to waist my time to do something of lessor value.

>>4677274
You just compared dollars to hours. Those aren't comparable units at all.

>>4677268
True, but attempting to limit natural human behavior (especially when it comes to sex) is just impractical. There is no simple solution other than the macabre like counting on plague and war to reduce our numbers.

>>4677280
...You can't be serious. Have you ever heard of the concept of wages?

>>4677281
>but attempting to limit natural human behavior (especially when it comes to sex) is just impractical
Not really, history has shown us that as societies become more industrial and even post-industrial that birth rate goes down. I mean the numbers support that. The simple solution is to just help the rest of the world reach a level of prosperity that they likewise have an average of 2.06 children per family.

>>4677274
Like I said, growing food is simple and doesn't take alot of time. For a hydroponic or aquaponic system, all you have to do is occasionally do some maintenance to make sure the system is running smoothly, which can take only a few minutes. Other then that, you would need to harvest the food, which is alot less work then going to a grocery store. If you really don't have enough time for that then that's really too bad. Since safe food isn't something you can buy with money these days.

>>4677280
let x = hourly wage (d/h)
let y = hours to grow a cabbage (h)
let z = price of a potato (d)

if z/y < x [which is (d/h) < (d/h)], then you should buy a potato.

>>4677265


Even in the best of times there has been strife over the scarcity of resources whether perceived or actual and the mere contention that we can "dig our way out" is asinine.

>>4677283
I have but that doesn't magically let you compare X and Y with inconsistent units.

>>4677293
That assumes you are getting paid for every hour of your life. Your off time isn't more valuable because you get paid more at work.

>>4677280

time is money...deal with it

>>4677301
Only figuratively there isn't a constant exchange rate between the two. And its only a one way exchange. If you have a billion dollars you cannot buy more time.

>>4677287
That all sounds fine and good, but you will have trouble telling a regular Joe to give up his spending money so that some time that may not happen in the future because of correlation that the human race will become more sustainable.

It reminds me of that aesop fable of the cat and the bell, not even having to bring up that correlation!=causation, or the fact that it would take an absolutely insane amount of money to get china or india to be post-industrial.

>>4677295
Rate per hour isn't very inconsistent...

>>4677307
you cannot compare a rate per hour to a flat number of hours though.

If my hourly wage is 24 dollars per hour and it would take me six hours to grow some potatoes by the equation given I'd have to wonder if 24 $/hr ?> 6 hours. Its not a meaningful inequality.

>>4677305
No but you can exchange time for money.

>>4677295

if X is time for a given amount of money and Y is time for growing food at an obvious, below minimum wage, migrant works piece work rate; then X by default will always be greater than Y for any T=time.

do you even math?

>>4677306
regular joes aren't the major problem though.

>>4677300
For someone who doesn't want to grow potatoes, growing a potato IS work. If your argument is really that growing potatoes is a fun and profitable use for your downtime, that's fine, but a person who doesn't want to grow potatoes would be better off making boots and trading boots for potatoes.

George Steinmetz (born 1957) is an American photographer. He graduated from Stanford University with a degree in Geophysics in 1979. He began his career in photography after hitchhiking through Africa for 28 months in his twenties. His current work focuses on photographing the world's deserts while piloting a motorized paraglider. This experimental aircraft enables him to capture images of the world inaccessible by traditional aircraft and most other modes of transportation.[1]

>tfw in starting geological engineering to specialize in geophysics
>tfw preparing and planning my first backpacking trip next year in my teens
>tfw want to be artist
>tfw I have a new role model
>tfw canadian and not going to Stanford

>>4677317
Doesn't matter though, the point is that the time you're not being paid for is not more valuable simply because of how much you're not being paid for it.

>>4677315
Please don't turn this into a class warfare/corporations v workers discussion bringing up a larger shitstorm about capitalism.

Just realize that it is an optimistic utopian impossibility, as well as not a very well thought-out idea.

>>4677323
>what is opportunity cost

>>4677323
We're not talking about time he's not getting paid for. We're talking about time he is currently getting paid for that he would have to spend gardening.

Diversification of labour, motherfucker.

>>4677335
Largely irrelevant.

>>4677330
I'm not. is this shit so politicized right now that the idea that wealthy people have more money than average is class warfare ?

>>4677323

this has nothing to do what you have categorized as "free" time, the core of the issue is: determining whatever efforts you make to maximise ones productivity and profits; hence if one were to spend more time doing what they get paid more to do verses making mud cakes in the hopes they get half a meal out of it; which fulfils our capitalist goals to their fullest?

>>4677350
What? I have a job that pays me for 40 hours a week, if i took it on myself to work 60 hours a week I'd not be getting anymore money. And i don't think most hourly workers are allowed to take on as much overtime as they want at a whim.

There's only so much time you get paid for and it's not all the time of your life.

>>4677330
>optimistic utopian impossibility

no, No NO, it's Darwinian capitalism and it always has been.

>>4677356
>if i took it on myself to work 60 hours a week I'd not be getting anymore money.
Are you retarded? Work 40 hours a week and suck cocks in an alleyway for the remaining 20 hours, you'll earn way more.

Anyway, just think: all that gardening time could be spent on your knees in an alleyway making serious cash.

>>4677349
Yes, actually. It's quite sad.

Just the mention of anyone other than the middle class is polarized at this point.

>>4677366
>and suck cocks in an alleyway for the remaining 20 hours, you'll earn way more
I think you're overestimating my cock sucking ability, I don't have your gift for it.

>>4677356
>if i took it on myself to work 60 hours a week I'd not be getting anymore money

well, that's where you failed to negotiate a favourable employment situation.

Me, on the other hand only get paid for the work I do and the deals I close. Hence, any additional time spent doing what makes me money with not necessarily but most likely and completely theoretically put additional fund in my pocket. Thus, taking that time to play in the dirt verses making serious money would be idiotic.

>>4677376
>Thus, taking that time to play in the dirt verses making serious money would be idiotic.
not necessarily. You'll die with some amount of money still in your bank account. there will some amount of hours in your life you need not work.

>>4677370
Don't use the teeth, and roll the tip around with the bottom of your tongue. Cup the balls occasionally, and every so often run your lips down the shaft. Remember the penis triangle: warmth, moisture, pressure.

In all seriousness, yes, hours do equal money. The reason you don't take on more hours is because your job is stressful, but if gardening was equally stressful, you wouldn't want to grow your own plants.

>>4677384

well, you know what they say, "he who dies with all the toys, laughs the best"

>>4677385
No the reason I don't take on more hours is when I would spend all my money if all i did was work?

>>4677388
*when would I

>>4677387
I thought it was "he who dies with the most toys rots and becomes unrecognizable just like every other sorry son of a bitch who walked upon the face of this earth"

>>4677388
Don't you mean, what you would spend your time doing?

If you enjoyed working as much as you enjoy not working, you would work as much as possible. When you are not working, you do things that you enjoy, like gardening. If you didn't enjoy gardening, then it would be like working. If it was like working, you wouldn't do it.

Hence, growing your own food is only a good idea if you like gardening more than you like your job.

>>4677388

sure, you can go out and slag' your nickels and dimes throwing them around like you're J-Z but then you have to go back to being somebodies bitch to get your next sack of change in a perpetual cycle of boom and bust.

>>4677393

naw, that's the hater version

>>4677401
If you simply love working so much then why does wage even figure into it?

>>4677407
We're looking at the opposite case: where you prefer leisure to work, but view gardening as work and not leisure.

>>4677407

not that guy, but I wouldn't like it half as much if I wasn't generously compensated for my efforts.

>>4677173
>>4677216
youre a fucking retard, top soil is a non renewable resource. if no one finds an easy way to make it that doesn't fuck up more environment, you're just going to ruin everything. And putting everyone in texas is a GREAT way to kill off humanity with disease, why people as dumb as you are allowed to live is beyond me.

>>4677306
why do you think china only allows one child, not two?

>>4677422
Just wow.... I didn't know there would be this many retards who don't understand simple number relations...

>X celebrity makes enough a year to afford 30 Lamborghinis
>OMG WHY WOULD THEY NEED 30 LAMBORGHINIS!?!

>>4675871
>trololololololololawl
Watched this made a grilled chicken breast sammich with avocado. All this did was make me hungry.

>>4677427
>>hurrrr
you want to ground that statment dipshit? it has nothing to do with anything I said.

>>4677424
Completely besides the point and cues up a shitstorm.

>>4677431
>putting everyone in texas is a GREAT way to kill off humanity with disease, why people as dumb as you are allowed to live is beyond me.

that wasn't hard at all anon

>>4677435
no it isn't beside the point. China knows it cant afford the number of people it has and still modernize. the resources don't exist. the energy and material requirements are fucking massive.

>>4675912
The western world just needs to learn to cut back on meat.
Same as all chingchongs need to stop eating fish all day erryday.

If we'd half our need for meat, shit would
a) taste better, because of better treatment
b) all that food/land/water/time used for growing those animals, could go to some better cause (ie. maybe start feeding the rest of the world)

fuck, If I just look around it's pretty sick.
70% of the people around me eat meat almost every day.
And if you eat it every day, yeah, shit needs to be cheap.

I've toned down my meat consumption to once/twice a week, and then it's a quality piece of meat.

>>4675991
meat that's been treated better, especially close to butchering it, always tastes better.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6909e/x6909e04.htm

>>4677443
And there is no possible way that human right's violation could even attempt to be accomplished in anywhere without authoritarianism. So that limits it to what, a few middle eastern countries, some African warlords, a handful of central/south American countries then what? It's a side point that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being widely implemented, especially not in India which is the second largest exploding population.

>>4677443
Nah, China could afford to support its population for good while longer at least. China has a quite a bit of land and a strong industry these days.

They could support population growth, however the cost of living would keep creeping up and given the distribution of wealth in china you'd have hundreds of millions of people getting more and more discontent.

The chinese government has not forgotten that Mao didn't really have much when he started in the countryside but when he reached the capital he had an army.

stability required them to either undergo a substantial redistribution of wealth or decrease population growth.

> implying these threads are not made by the same guy who spams circumcision threads and tipping threads

>>4677458
>And there is no possible way that human right's violation could even attempt to be accomplished in anywhere without authoritarianism
why not? its not like the chinese shoot people for violating the law. Its enforced with economic sanctions. There are all sorts of ways you could set up incentives for smaller families without authoritarianism. The important thing is to decrease the average number of children per family you don't need to worry about everyone having precisely one child so long as you bring the average below 2. That's not that hard of a task there are plenty of countries with birthrates less than 2.

>>4677458
bitch all you want about the impracticallity, meat is not impractical, its the ammount of people we're trying to keep alive, and the only moral way we're going to reduce it is by not reproducing the way we currently are.

>>4677477
>its not like the chinese shoot people for violating the law

>>4677481
the one child law, obviously they shoot people for violating other laws.

>>4677470

As a westerner who lived in China, I know everything you said came from a book.

That being said their arable land is maxed out to the point that I witnessed crops being grown within spiting distance of a runoff pond from a nuclear power plant.

They are more fuked than anyone else on the planet and the only reason they have strong economic growth is because their repressive state doesn't give a shit about the people or what happens to them. Yet, the key to their success is simply fudged numbers and a iron fist that controls media with a fabricated outward perception of a crumbling state. At the end of the day they are just the USSR part two and when the truth is revealed about their crumbling rust bucket, fantasy of an economy they'll fall like the Berlin wall.

>>4677483
ah yeh, well, the one child policy is heavily overrated anyway.
only 35% of the population (mainly urban people) have to comply to it, and even then they can just choose to pay a certain fine.

>>4677494
>crops being grown within spiting distance of a runoff pond from a nuclear power plant
why the fuck wouldn't you do that? Nuclear power plant run off comes from the coolant, its not actually radioactive.

>>4677494
>Yet, the key to their success is simply fudged numbers
No. They do rely on manipulations to an extent, in that its not a free market, they artificially undervalue their currency allowing for steady growth rather just going bubble and burst, but their GDP is still their GDP.

>>4677496
Yes, but it worked.

>>4677498

You can't really be suggesting that anything good could come from that, unless your infinitival mind has dreams of some kind of superhero side effect.

>>4677501
it worked very well in the sense of massive abortions, unregistered children with no rights whatsoever, the abandoning and murdering of female infants and ultimately the skewed gender ratio and surplus of men in society.

apart from that china's population has continued to grow at the exact same pace as before the policy.

>>4677505
Come from what? There's no fucking danger at all, the water that runs off is used to cool the excess heat from the steam that powers the turbines. It never gets anywhere near the actual nuclear core.

There's nothing wrong with it.

>>4677499

NO, it's not real GDP if the currency they use to value the input and output is based on unicorns and rainbows. Not even to mention, that this numbers game they are playing is wholly unsustainable, which in actuality constitutes a more globally pandemic bubble than any western banking system failure.

>>4677506
>apart from that china's population has continued to grow at the exact same pace as before the policy.
You mean 1.5 children per family?

>the abandoning and murdering of female infants
meh that's been vastly overstated, especially given the availability of abortion over there.

>skewed gender ratio and surplus of men in society
Which will further decrease population growth rate in the next generation.

>>4677510
Their currency is fixed to the US Dollar, if you argue that their currency is based on unicorns then the US Dollar is and then what the fuck are we even talking about anymore?

>that this numbers game they are playing is wholly unsustainable, which in actuality constitutes a more globally pandemic bubble than any western banking system failure.
No it isn't, eventually they'll be unable to support the constant growth anymore, but that won't have wide reaching effects. They won't collapse away into nothing.

>>4677507

I sure that's what the guy that banged a monkey in Africa said right be for he got the HIV.

srs'ly though...you can't tell me that, there are no ill effects from drinking runoff water from a nuk' plant...that's just carelessness and retarded,

>>4677513
>meh that's been vastly overstated
ITYM vastly understated, considering there are no reliable statistics and the state is all hush-hush about the phenomenon.

>>4677521
>srs'ly though...you can't tell me that, there are no ill effects from drinking runoff water from a nuk' plant...that's just carelessness and retarded,

Yes I can. What do you think is wrong with it? what do you think the actual problems are? Did you just hear the world 'nukular' and get scared?

>>4677522
Sure, and by that logic the threat of aliens controlling our mind is vastly understated because they're all hush-hush about it.

people find out the sex of their babies before birth and there's no stigma on abortion over there. Why would they practice infanticide?

>>4677523
>he doesn't know nuclear plants systematically release portions of the radioactive water along with the cooling water

>>4677524
>Why would they practice infanticide?
perhaps you should ask them instead?
the problem is real, and your reasoning doesn't change the reality.

>>4677526
Yes, yes, and the jews did 9/11 too.

>>4677518

>Their currency is fixed to the US Dollar

exactly, FIXED. which is clearly currency manipulation, if for no other reason than you feel like it, they have the ability to "fix" it to whatever amount they want. This gives them and unfair advantage to not only increase the price of their exports while at the same time decreasing the cost of their imports.

let's just day I borrow a dollar from you and you agree to get repaid in dicks *one to one* then it's time to repay you I decide that it's now 10 dicks to the dollar and I have you raped by a gang of ethnic individuals as repayment

>>4677523

you're telling me you've never heard of an accident or industry cutting corners to save money?

>>4677528
Yes, and chinese sex-based infanticide has a long history from far before the one child policy or even the PRC.

But by in large its over estimated by the west who is eager to look at the yellow menace and see the shadow of evil around every corner.

Does it happen to some extent, yes, but not nearly as much as people seem to think, and not strongly tied to the one child policy.

>>4677534
valid points.

guys, guys
/pol/ is that way >>>/pol/

>>4677530
>which is clearly currency manipulation
of course its manipulation so what? They're a sovereign nation and socialist one, why would they play by free market rules? Not only would it be bad for their economy it would be bad for their people.

>unfair advantage
What the fuck does fairness have anything to do with anything? THEY'RE A SOVEREIGN NATION. Why do we think other countries will be fair? Was the Opium war "fair" to China? What is this sense of fairness that you expect to see here?

We don't HAVE to play with them, if we don't like the game. But let's not pretend we're getting played here. We're doing pretty well thanks to their low cost manufacturing, and they're not pulling the wool over our eyes.

>>4677534

actually, what they don't tell you is that the "one child" policy is simply a tax and deterrent for the lower classes who can't pay (then get locked up). There is no real penalty for having as many children as you want in China as long as you can pay for it. I knew many wealthy Chinese who had large families and no one gave a shit.

>>4677545
Well yeah.. but it still has brought down urban populations.

How just it is to discriminate reproduction based on wealth is unclear, I mean let's face it even without it to a certain extent you need more money to raise more children so I'm not sure there's room to argue its fundamentally a violation of some divinely granted right or anything.

>>4677542

The fact that they are sovereign is irrelevant. They signed up to the WTO, WB, UN and countless other organizations to reap the benefits of membership by agreeing to abide by a select set of rules. THEY ARE BREAKING THE DAMN RULES. I can understand that it's every man for himself in this cut throat world but at the same time there must be consequences for the bitch on the street that always goes strait to kicking some dude in the nutz.

>>4677547
>How just it is to discriminate reproduction based on wealth

The wealthy people who had large families could afford them without burden or necessity. In contrast an impoverish farmer who needs a son to take over the farm and for labour but has a daughter is...ass out. Now lets say he has a son anyway. Well now he's got to pay the tax, but he doesn't have any money...so he goes to jail. That's how a whole family of poor farmer loose everything.

>>4677550
Oh noes, they broke the UN's rules? Imagine the UN being ineffectual.... what is the world coming to?

But like I said. We can stop playing their game if we wanted, but I don't see why we should expect them to commit economic... is there a chinese equivalent to seppuku? I don't want to be racist here.

Honestly participating in the global marketplace is pretty shitty for most countries out there. I mean we have countries who grow cash crops to sell to us so they can buy the coca cola from us and import food that they didn't grow because we encouraged them to grow cash crops.

We stacked the deck in the globalism game, I see no reason to expect any but the dumbest countries to try and play with us on level ground. What incentive would they have at all? Besides our corporations bribing their government that is.

What the fuck happened to this thread?

>>4677557
Yeah, but one child policy doesn't apply in the boonies. It only applies to urban populations.

>>4677562
meat industry -> sustainability -> population -> China

I like nat geo. but things can be brutal ugly and fast and I like chickens. and turkey. but i bet they don't like me too much and given the chance, they would eat you.. if they could. and they are sentient beings. but still.. and I have slaughtered hogs and skinned animals and gutted fish. but I always knock them on the head or render them unconscious before I slit their throat. call it Kosher, Halal, Christian or simple human stuff. and I am a comnivore , and I like meat, and no fan of peta. and make no mistake, In a minute i am going to have a cheeseburger. but give peta their due. you don't treat animals that way. It makes me angry to see any living thing treated that way. it is wrong and wrong headed. disrespectful; because we are a bit smarter. and I hate IN YOUR FACE PETA stuff, but i already know. what is next..what is next perchance....

>>4677559

The entirety of the integrated global one world economy is based on a system of regulations and mutually compliance. If everyone just decided that they are going to just go and do whatever the fuk they want to on any given day it would be (chaos (not fun the the theory, more like zombie apocalypse). There is no way in the infinitely interconnected financial, trade, military and political world that one "player" could just say I'm talking my ball and going home; that's a three y/o argument.

>>4676247
>photographer is white middle-class
>Meat packing plan
>all the workers are latinos or white trash

All the ingrediences are there, I say.

>>4677563

You are right, that it is rarely enforced in the rural areas unless the "state" for whatever reason wants to control or make an example of any dissidents; Tibet, Mongolia and most of the souther boarder regions as well as anywhere else they damn well please.

>>4677573
>There is no way in the infinitely interconnected financial, trade, military and political world that one "player" could just say I'm talking my ball and going home; that's a three y/o argument.
Of course there is, we did it to Cuba.

>>4677579
>Of course there is, we did it to Cuba.

comparing a backward third world island with the most populous country on the planet...are you kidding me?

>>4677583
Nope. The principle is essentially the same. If we so desired we could stop trading with them, but there's no way we would desire that, because as you said their are the most populous country in the world.

>>4677583
Oh also, Cuba is obviously 2nd world, that was the whole crux of the thing we had them in the first place.

>>4677585

OK, let's just consider this for a second. Imagine, every shelf of all the dollar stores empty, all of the automotive, airline, heavy machinery, material suppliers...well shit, just fuk all manufacturing all together. To throw out a number lets say 65% unemployment, it would be like a global Rodney King riot. On the upside that will fix the population problem.

>>4677590
Sure. But that's the point, trading with China no matter how you feel about their "fairness" has been good for us and still is.

>>4677586

Maybe they were still second world when they were being funded by the former USSR but after they got cut off they fell a notch.

>>4677592
yeah, but now that the USSR is gone they're really the only thing you could consider second world these days.

>>4677591

You are still missing the point. It's not good, it's a necessary evil. No matter how much we'd like to stop; once you're hooked on the crack you can't stop and it's just going to drain the life out of you until you get to that tipping point. That's exactly what's happening, the world is hooked on some china crack and they are going to keep selling you the shit until you die.

>>4675871

To be honest, I'm not sure if I'd hate being stuck to five other guys and we get periodically raped.

>make points about how vegans are retarded
>go to bed
>wake up
>150 new replies
>half are some wank arguing biology and observation of nature are irrelevant to animal ethics
>the other half are people falling for what I hope is an obvious troll

>>4677594
You'd have to include China too.
1st. world: Western democracy and allies
2nd. world: Communism
3rd. world: Everyone else

>>4677134
Show's how little you know.

>>4677160
So we should still strive to breed until we reach the limit? No, just no.

>>4677915
I suppose so. But I guess I would contend that China and the west have effectively ceased hostilities, okay maybe some cyber crime here and there, but not really the tensions of old. Whereas Cuba is still under embargo, still officially being sanctioned. I guess by that standard North Korea still counts too.

I mean our cuban policy is still a holdover from the cold war that mostly remains unchanged in the US due to a combination of apathy and no politicians willing to alienate the Cuban voters in the great swing state of Florida.

>>4677960
It doesn't help that as of late some rather old surface-to-air technology was sold to NK by the Cubans and intercepted in Panama by customs agents.

>USA big industry is nothing but a bribing mafia

you don't say.

>>4677964
It doesn't surprise me, but I mean let's face it why wouldn't they? Its like withholding sex in a marriage and then being surprised to discover your partner is cheating on you.

>>4677966
If the US government could just bring industry to heel it would be the greatest empire in the history of the world.

I mean if we could just get corporations to obey US law then they can go out and subjugate the entire world with their charred coffees and fast food for us in place of an army.

Unfortunately the US has allowed itself to be hoisted on its own petard and is itself beholden to corporate interests.

>>4677977
I see the 99% moonbats have arrived

>>4677979
What are you on about now?

ITT:
>LIBRULS HATIN DEMCURCY AND MURIKA AN TRYIN TO MAKE ME COMMUNIST
>BIG BUISNES IS FREDUM
>OORAH HAMBOIGAHS
>I BET OBAMMER MADE THIS THREAD
>COMMIE PINKO TRAITORS
>ANIMAL CRUELTY IS AWWWRIGHT

And so the song goes on~

>>4677984
Your butthurt is palpable.

>>4677989
Why are you palpating my anus? How gay are you exactly on a scale from 1 to Larry Craig?

>>4677989
Nah mang, I'm just humoured. 'cause you know, I don't have to live in your shithole. You know, since we better people also make better countries, based on equality, liberty, and humane values instead of might-makes-right brutality and constant betrayal of stated promises and principles combined with a slothful, greedy, sociopathic populace.

You're welcome to "come at me bro", and admire my superior standards of living, societal justice and unity, stability, happiness, education level and moral superiority.

There's no level of repentance and true animal rights that will satisfy an animal rights activist. They're really using animals as a weapon to attack people and won't stop until history books are rewritten to censor human usage of animal hides and the like.

>>4678000
No one is jealous of the Finns. Scandinavia proper, sure that's a fine place... in summer. But Finland, fuck that.

>>4677496
Most people can't afford to pay that fine you first world lout.

>>4678005
I concur. I'm not sure why it's included in the image since they aren't Scandinavian geographically, genetically, culturally, or in any other way considerable. They're probably not even human, but rather some sort of retarded drunko space invaders.

>>4678031

I really dont see the difference between finnish ans swedish nature and weather? also the people in finland dont drink that much http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption
But i cant deny that we are perhaps less social and "active" that our neighbours :)

>>4678031
>>4678000
Finns are nordic. In my opinion they're scandinavian as well (due to their history with us Swedes) but there are valid arguments why you shouldn't consider them scandinavian.

>>4678390
>>4678397
I remember reading an article that Finland's native population is on the decline simply due to the incredible amounts of men that are considered "beneath" the standards of modern, healthy, outgoing women.

How does it feel to be part of an ethnicity that is dying because it produces nothing but emasculated, obese assburgers? Maybe I should move to Finland with my footlong Tennessee dick to ensure the native women don't go completely without?

>>4678415
Scandinavian "men" are probably the most effeminate little fuckers on Earth. Strange how it turned out that way.

>>4678415
Interesting, I've read articles about our un-beatable education system. http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/12/7/1291740184391/PISA-rankings-within-OECD-001.jpg

Tennesee huh? how bout that american health?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Obesity_country_comparison_-_path.svg

Also as a bonus: http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=3073

>>4678439
Yep, aint nothing like a top notch education in Marxism. Enjoy your 50% tax rate, comrade.

they horribly abuse animals and then kill them
what's a secret, how people can remain so callous despite the obvious facts?

I dont have a problem paying taxes as the wages are pretty high here and the money that goes to the government isn't spent on war at afghanistan or some anti drug war. Instead it's spent wisely on public health care and education.

>>4678454
Callousfag here. It's called emotional detachment. Look into it.

>>4678479
>isn't spent on war at afghanistan or some anti drug war
So you'd just let the terr'ists win?

>>4678439
Are you going to educate yourself out of going extinct, commie? Your nice pansy education isn't going to help you when all your women abandon you because you don't have balls. Hell, you don't even have a functioning army, but a gaggle of boy scouts playing soldier for 6 months and then going home. You really love that big Russian cock fed to you at every turn to be so emasculated and weak.

>>4678487
Let them win? They have nothing against us.
Why would we even bother?

They are your problem now. And you can just blame yourself for it. The US started the whole thing when they first got involved in 01.. Your terrorist attacks has just become more after you joined the war.

>>4678511
>They have nothing against us.
Of course they don't. You have no freedoms. Terr'ists hate freedom.

>>4678507
Do we need an army? Against who? Russia likes us and Sweden hasn't done anything with it's army in 150years. We have it better than you, just face it :)

>>4678525
What can't I do in my country that you can?
ib4 guns and murder.

>>4678533
Be universally hated by every other country on the planet?

Checkmate, atheist!

>>4678533
Have pride.

>>4678540
Says the American.

>>4678538
Fuck. Ok you win I surrender. Your country is better than mine :(

>>4678554
>eurotrash not surrendering
At least you stay true to your roots.

>>4678576
You really should check your facts next time before implying anything about another country.

It makes you look like a true American

>>4678614
America doesn't need facts, it has guns and money. What the fuck are your "Facts" going to do against that? Will your facts protect you from a predator drone?

>>4678617
As i said, who do we need to defend ourselves from? And how the hell would you defeat a whole country when u cant even handle ~1million terrorists?

Think about that. Now I'm off to sleep, nice chatting with you. You had some good arguments there, I almost froze when i heard them.

>>4678640
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

GUYS I DEFEATED THIS COMMIE THREAT TO FREEDOM!!

>>4678554
12/31/infinity

>>4678643
>eurotrash being a threat to anything other than good food

>>4678554
Actually, here in Europe we use both the 'European Logic' and the 'Japanese Logic'

for upcoming events and the like, we use DD/MM/YYYY, for record keeping we use YYYY/MM/DD

>>4678747
American's use language logic. They understand that 3/17/20xx is short for: "March 17th, 20xx".

>>4678842
what about people that say "the 17th of march, 20XX"

>>4678842
Becasue Americans say "July 4th" and not "4th of July".

>>4676962
if the hollandaise did it you can too snookums!

>>4677125
i'm talking bout people who are here now, actually, not hypothetical future generations. population planning is part of any effective sustainability framework. but nice strawman, cunt.

>all dem chemicals

>>4679336
They're no true americans

>>4679339

I've heard both used interchangeably. The latter is more common.