So, the most watched and profitable movies are the ones that need the most protection?

I suppose it's worth pissing off a few consumers to make those massive profits into massiver profits.

But you aren't going to be replacing grassy fields for grazing with fields. Phasing out meat production also means greatly reducing the amount of grains we need in the first place. I have read that the amount of grain that livestock eats in this country is enough to feed 800 million people.

America going vegetarian would also mean we would either have an excess amount of grains, or we would have a bunch of unnecessary farmland. I think it's a sure bet that It won't be used to help feed the poor though...

Why don't you go back and ready my post. If you look real hard you might see the words, "choice or identity". What do you think I'm implying now?

More than that, they also help suppress wages.

Public opinion doesn't matter much when you engineer local monopolies.

I want you to take a moment and honestly consider the following question.

Which of these two do you think is more likely:

1) The left wants to turn everyone into black transgender lesbian atheistic Muslims on welfare having abortions, and the right wing is absolutely right about the liberal agenda...
2) The left believes in respecting the humanity, identity, and choices of people, and the right wing tries to demonize liberal ideology in order to make foolish people (like yourself) believe that protecting a choice or identity is the same as forcing it on people.

Live Sports is always the reason that I hear people say that they subscribe to cable. It seems like a lot of people are willing to be abused to get their sports fix.

Clearly you don't understand the difference between abusive relationships and consenting relationships..

Do you want free speech, freedom of association, or a free market? You have the right to say what you want (in theory) without government retribution, but that doesn't mean that the government is going to protect you from the social or business consequences.

You are free to show up for a job interview wearing a "I 3 Hitler" T-shirt, but the company isn't required to give you a job. If it does hire him, customers are free to say they disapprove. The company is free to keep them on (and piss off and lose customers over it), or they can be free to fire them in order to distance themselves from negative customer reactions.

None of those interactions are the government's concern, which is what makes it free.

Not because you think it's a bad thing, but because you think that it's reasonable to conflate those 2 things...

What about it? If all who enter into it are consenting adults who enter into it freely and willingly, then I don't care. I have no moral objection to polygamy itself.

... I can't tell if you are joking, trolling, or ignorantly confusing "bigotry" with "bigamy".

I don't even know what you are talking about, but disagreement (and even bigotry) isn't automatically "hate speech".

Sure, they are all scourge of the earth. However, they are still human, albeit morally reprehensible humans.

They should face the consequences of their crimes, but yet as civilized people we still have the moral duty to allow them with certain human rights.

However, the problem with the analogy (aside from being offensive and inflammatory) is that unlike gays, their rights have nothing to do with the reason we condemn them.

Nazis have the right to hold Nazi beliefs, but they don't have the right to harm the people they hate. Rapists and abusers have the right to think whatever twisted disgusting things they want, but they don't have the right to harm people.

Gays aren't taking anything away from anyone or harming anyone in either their thoughts or their actions.

Romantic, civil, or business partnerships of legally consenting, mentally capable, and non-coerced adults should not be restricted by anything at all.

I'm sorry, but I am intolerant of your intolerance toward intolerance.

Thinking one group of people is subhuman, and not worthy of the same rights isn't "an opposing view", it's bigotry.

According to the Right, liberals are racists, because they are the only ones who talk about race issues. Apparently liberals are also the intolerant ones, because they are concerned about intolerance.

Has someone patented that process yet?

Is that fact based on your political or religious affiliation, or based on actual research?

The reading I've done on the subject seems to either be on the side that it is genetic, or at the very least genetically biased. I'd have let you slide if you said that you doubt is genetic, or it's not clear that it's genetic.

However, just outright saying definitively that it's not genetic seems pretty bold.

In addition to all of those fine points, many of us here are well aware of how loosely defined 'hacker' and 'cyber terrorist' is likely to be (and is already).