Do you dig it out or just go over top with new road it’s gotta be pretty effed up underneath all that, before chiseling through it and clearing it off, and where do you go with the slag if you do dig it out? Do you treat it like snow?
This is worse than Pompeii. The ancient Roman city wasn’t buried under lava, but under ash, rock and boulders. While that is still very deadly, it isn’t nearly as destructive as lava. That’s why we can still experience Pompeii architecture, art and culture. Excavating this road, covered in solidified lava, is extremely difficult and costly. Just go over it, once it’s cooled.
I looked it up and unsurprisingly there’s a whole Wikipedia page about this. Long story short, it takes decades for rock to become soily at all so likely a much longer time till it becomes as soily as what’s around it here.
Till has been in use in English since the 9th century; the earliest sense of the word was the same as the preposition to. It has been used as a conjunction meaning “until” since the 12th century. Until has been in use as both a preposition and a conjunction for almost as long. Both of these words are acceptable; you may send a text to your misbehaving child stating either “U R grounded till 4ever” or “U R grounded until 4ever.”
… you will probably wish to avoid ’till, use ’tiladvisedly, and use both until and tillfreely. And if you use till in writing and someone tells you that you have made an error, simply take the extra L off the end of the word and poke them in the eye with it.
In Iceland it’s pretty cold a lot of the year - not insanely, but colder than a lot of plants prefer. So the rock to soil conversion happens via moss.
While on tour there last year, our guide pointed out the ages of certain lava fields, and he noted that the existing lava fields around Grindavik were between 700 and 1300 years old. My photos from the area show that they’re about 60-70% rock, with moss covering the rest. I suspect if you scraped away the moss, you’ll find slightly crumbly rock underneath (But don’t do that - do not mess with the moss in iceland). I’m not sure how long it takes for the lava to be converted into soil, but I would guess it’s more on the scale of multiple thousands of years.
This page (up until the waterfall) has some good photos of a few lava fields and gives dates for the eruptions that created them. Meandering Wild - Lava and Moss
(The photos are at the bottom of each blurb, not the top - so Eldhraun is the one with the rounded rocks and moss at 350 years old, and not the black rocks, and Dimmuborgir, at 2300 years old, is the one with the treetops shown below the craggy rocks.)
Another banger from our tour guide was that (according to him) the locals say if you get lost in an Icelandic forest, just stand up. Which is… sorta true. They only tree of real quantity there is birch, and the tallest birch I saw was about 16ish feet (5ish meters). They do not grow heavily, so they’re a bit comedic and stringy. Decades old stands of them sort of look like 1-2 year old stands planted in warmer climates - without any ground cover, of course, because while grass will grow, the usual complement of weeds, vines, and what-not does not.
It grows so slowly that disturbing it undoes decades of growth, and since it takes hundreds of years to convert rock to soil, messing with the moss is well, first, just upsetting the natural beauty, but also robs future generations of the land for just a few moments of “huh, neat.” Our tour guide was pretty reverent when he talked about the role that moss plays.
Also they’ll fine you and maybe bar you from returning.
They did that in Hawaii decades ago when Kīlauea covered Chain of Craters road and others.
Kīlauea said “Fuck that” and covered the roads again and again, along with entire neighborhoods. The Hawaiians just let it all go back to nature now. You can drive roughly 10 miles of Chain of Craters Road now, which is in Volcanoes National Park, until it ends very much like the road in this picture.
Speaking of Kīlauea, you might be interested in reading about Jacks Lava House which survived for years as the entire neighborhood around it was reclaimed by the volcano. It was eventually reclaimed by Kīlauea as well about a decade ago.
I was feeling really bad for the guy thinking he was now homeless, because there would’ve been no way to sell the home prior being in the location it was, until I read the last lines of him living at his second home while he figures out what to do. Oh gee, I don’t know. How about, live in your spare home? For fucks sake “figuring out what to do”. Collect any reimbursement and move on in your extra house as if nothing happened. Rich motherfucker. There are few enough houses available in Hawaii without someone taking up multiple. No wonder Hawaiians are sick of haoli.
My rants aside though neat links! Thanks for posting them!
My understanding is that the lava house became an attraction more than a personal home. Folks would hike in there to stay a few days, B&B style, to get married there, etc.
Looks like they would need to bulldoze it level and I assume add some fill dirt to even out the grade, I don’t know how many winters such a road would last though.
The FBI isn’t going through tax returns looking for Illegal income; rather if you’re suspected of illegal activity, they WILL go through your tax returns, because if you didn’t report your illegal income that is another law you’ve then broken. — See Al Capone
So. It is both a very bad idea, and a good idea to report your illegal income
A better idea is to not do anything illegal; or at least do the illegal thing offshore and hide the income there. Like a good multinational corporation would.
If it looks extremely questionable, like you’re a life coach in Alabama and made 380k, it’ll raise a lot of flags.
Do you have a paper trail?
who pays for life coaching in cash? And 100% of customers?
Life coaching in Alabama and you made that much? " Is there also some business presence like a website?
There’s more things to consider. I say that as a person who has to set up my own company to protect myself when I got freelance clients, and complicated the hell out of my taxes.
I was looking into doing some mutual “consultant work” with a friend to make it look like I had an income. The taxes wouldn’t have made it viable though.
You can only plead the 5th while you're in court. Prosectors are free to use all the shady crap you did that they have evidence of in building a case against you though.
I’d think that courts would say that you can’t claim the fifth, since you self reported the illegal income. And that had you failed to claim it, you’d be evading taxes….
So yes. You COULD claim your 5th amendment rights against self incrimination, but then you’ve violated the 16th where you’ve failed to declare income.
When the stinger gets pulled out of the bee, the sac with the venom comes out too, still attached to the singer
Attempts to remove it injects more venom.
The life of the bee is worth less than the increased deterrent to animals attacking the hive.
The life of a handful of bees really isn’t worth much at all to the hive. So even when there’s no longer giant ass bears going after hives, there’s not a lot of pressure for the bee to lose the barb.
Edit:
It’s also important to remember that evolution isn’t just competing against predators/prey. It’s competing against competitors too.
If one hive of bees has barbs and worse stings than the one next to it, the one without barbs is gonna get attacked.
So the barbs don’t have to be enough to convince predators that honey is never worth the sting, just that this honey is more painful to get than that honey.
Overtime the less painful honey may be pushed out of the local ecosystem. At which point it’s just barbed bees, and the cycle might start over again with another way stings are more painful.
I just wanted to add that the worker bees with stingers are dead ends in the lifecycle anyhow. Only the queen will lay eggs and only the drones (stingerless) can mate with her. (Unless the years have really screwed up my memory!)
A young female when given royal jelly triggers it becoming a queen and reproductive organs instead of a stinger.
The males are drones. They have male reproductive organs instead of stingers, and they just hang out and try to bone the queen.
But the worker bees are the ones that actually, you know, do the work.
So that’s why European bees won’t “swarm” someone and all sting them. You get a few warning shots and a chance to retreat, just moving away is enough for it to stop.
Meanwhile, African bees had to deal with shit like honey badgers. And as we’re all aware, the honey badger gives very little fucks about anything.
So they don’t half ass defense, they send out a shit ton of bees that won’t stop until the threat is chased away and keeps running away. If they didn’t the honey badger wouldnt even notice.
Then some genius decided to cross breed the species, and we get “Africanized killer bee” that treat everything they come across as a honey badger.
I wonder if that would sometimes be a desirable trait in farmed bees in areas with a lot of predators or competitors.
Like, the human knows that protection will be required and will suit up accordingly, but the ants, wasps or bears that try to rob the hive will be much less successful.
But they forgot that life finds a way and the hybrids wouldn’t just stay where they put them.
They not only outcompete European hives, they’ll straight up raid and destroy other hives stealing their young.
Because their African half evolved in a resource scarce environment. If they run across other bees they view it as a direct threat on their resources. Pretty sure it also causes them to establish new hives much further away than European bees. Which is why they keep spreading so fast.
I’m just glad no one’s tried to crossbreed honey badgers with wolves to combat the hybrid bees yet.
If he never played the original I think it’s good he starts with it. Black Mess is great, but the original Half Life has a certain historical value (and is still a great game).
Black Mesa is literally just better looking Half-Life approved by Valve. I can really only say the same thing so many times before you understand that what I’m saying is what it is lol.
And you’re saying there’s no difference between playing Black Mesa today vs playing Half life today, and therefore he might as well start out with Black Mesa? Or what is the meaning of your reply?
Hard disagree. Games like Half life have a huge historical value for their impact. Playing the original is worth it. Especially if one takes the medium itself seriously. You wouldn’t say an original movie and a 22 years younger remake are “the same”, right? I think you’re playing dumb with me.
Love the Wikipedia link btw. I’ve played Black Mesa in its early access phase already and then later on again when they released Xen.
No, I just think you’re kinda dumb now looking for a pedantic fight on Lemmy of all places trying to argue that Half-Life and Black Mesa aren’t the same story and essential game lol.
A few of them have. The core issue is it doesn’t add much range, while at the same time adding more cost, weight, and complexity. On a sunny summer day you can expect to get single digit kilometers added to the range, while on a cloudy winter day you won’t get even a full kilometer added.
They do make some sense on hybrids, as they are lighter so the range increase is a bit more and people are less likely to charge a hybrid. But, they still suffer from not adding much range, while adding cost, weight, and complexity.
Edit: Auto Focus did a re-review of the Fisker Ocean, which has solar panels. Linked to the timestamp where he is talking about them.
Bear in mind also that the extra weight and possibly aerodynamic compromises actually reduce range. In some cases, particularly at night, in poor weather, and at high speed, the panels would be a net negative.
They would only be useful if your car sat around in the sun for long periods without access to a charger.
Parked at work it will probably have a building nearby that creates a shadow. In a traffic jam, assuming perfect sun conditions and no shade, a 100W panel will generate around about 500m (or yards) of range per hour. Meanwhile the AC will use about 700W to 1kW of power to prevent your face from melting.
Some tests on YouTube report a realistic addition of 1 mile per day using the car in a typical commute.
Depending on the car and the temperature, AC Is simply not an option (same for heat) in a traffic jam. I drove a 2019 Nissan Leaf (with 12/12 battery bars and normally 80-140 miles in range, depending on the season)for my 19 mile commute for a while, and had an awful time during subzero temperatures (~-20 Celsius) once. I went from fully charged on the work chargers to considering breaking out my reflective emergency blanket in three hour stop-and-go traffic so as not to kill my battery before home. I stopped to charge and it took much longer than usual, to the point that I just gave up and used my hand warmers and hoped on the way home.
I don’t blame the car for that, I was unprepared for the predictable consequences of cold temperatures on electric cars, but it was still super unpleasant.
Leafs have battery packs with no active heating or cooling, which significantly impacts their performance in bad weather and when fast charging. Coupled with very small packs in the early models, and you have a recipe for a bad experience.
I just can’t do it. They’re trashy and they smell terrible. Almost universally friends/partners I’ve had the smoke cigarettes ash wherever they want- like my patio or door step. I had an ex that would chain smoke, ash in front of the door, then put the cigarette out and leave it on the steps.
So now everyone that walks by sees our entryway covered in ash, cigarette butts, and burn marks. Just looks and smells like shit.
That same partner kept an ash tray in the patio. It filled up with water when it rained, and she just… left it. So now the patio smells like soppy wet shit too.
Ever since then cigs are a deal breaker for me. If you don’t respect your body how can you ever respect your environment or relationship?
Massive red flag about multiple issues from hygiene to risk-taking to basic scientific literacy to propensity for addictive behavior. The list goes on and on.
It's a first world hill to die on, and many of the people who espouse veganism are only able to do so because of their own privilege.
It's a combination of smugness and "I'm better than you" and the lack of awareness that everyone had and continues to benefit from a world that has always used animal products. The Industrial Revolution basically ran on steam engines and leather belts, for example.
I have absolutely no problem with the idea that using fewer animal products and eating less meat is a good idea. I also recognize that feeding the world's growing population is probably going to involve insects being more widely used as a food source.
Maybe they mean privilege wrt education? As i understand it, it takes a non-zero amount of knowledge about nutrition to substitute meat completely and not be deficient in something. But I'm a life-long omnivore so I may be wrong
There’s also the privilege of living in a location where vegan alternatives are readily and frequently available, vast swaths of the US are in what’s known as “food deserts”, locations where “residents’ access to affordable, healthy food options (especially fresh fruits and vegetables) is restricted or nonexistent due to the absence of grocery stores within convenient traveling distance” (foodispower.org/access-health/food-deserts/) these locations also tend to have high obesity or diabetes rates due to the fact that the only food easily and cheaply available is high in sugar. Add in things like the increased price for even simple vegan foods (like rice and beans) and you might be starting to see the picture, as much as some people would LIKE to be vegan it is literally not possible for them without either taking on substantial additional costs or completely upending their life.
A lot of the reason people who are otherwise pro-vegan (like myself) tend to dislike online vegans is that they will, consistently and smugly, while in a location and economic position where its easier to get vegan options, berate people for eating animal products without ever considering the possibility that its MUCH harder to get non-animal product based foods in certain areas
Food deserts aren’t just places where there aren’t grocery stores, they also include places where there are abundant stores but fruits, veggies, and other vegan or healthy options cost drastically more, for example, there are parts of New York City considered to be food deserts because all the healthy options are too expensive for someone on a low income to reliably afford, forcing them to go for unhealthy, but cheaper options. This is something that, to the credit of whoever is in charge of the NYC health department, the city has been working on solving, doing things such as incentivizing “Green Carts”, food carts with affordable healthy options like vegetables and fruits.
Also consider, you don’t know too much about that person’s life, maybe they live in a non-food desert location but have to travel frequently via car through food deserts, maybe they have to move a food desert in the future, maybe they have a dietary restriction preventing them from accessing several of those healthy vegan options, so they have to supplement their diet by using animal products.
Also, in my experience, most ‘anti-vegans’ tend to have no idea what a food desert is, the normal excuse is nutrients or iron intake, most of the non-vegans I’ve talked to that even know about food deserts have either tried to go vegan and found it too hard to do while also keeping up with their health and finances or work in an industry directly combating food deserts, just something to consider.
Those aren't the vegans that most people are talking about. Being poor and having to eat vegan is different from being vegan because you want to stand out from everyone else with your vegan black bean soy burger with vegan cheese on a vegan sprouted whole wheat bun. If you can afford the overpriced "vegan" versions of typically non-vegan foods, and complain about your struggles being vegan, that's privilege.
When you're poor, you don't advertise the fact that you're eating vegan. You just make rice and beans because it's the absolute cheapest food available. You'll take meat and non-vegan when it's available. But at the very least, you'll survive on rice and beans. It's generally not something that people are proud of.
You just make rice and beans because it’s the absolute cheapest food available. You’ll take meat and non-vegan when it’s available. But at the very least, you’ll survive on rice and beans.
This. When I was poor af and regularly using the food bank they’d give venison periodically, and that was my favorite part of the boxes. That and this rice and seasoning meals went together amazingly and would last me like a week of meals.
You’re making a big assumption here by saying that all vegans are buying vegan substitutes like Beyond Burgers. And I mean very big, since all the vegans I know don’t eat that stuff or buy it occasionally as a treat, or at a restaurant. Most of my meals are simple with rice, noodles, curry paste, and some vegetables. They can even be frozen or canned to reduce preparation time.
The implication is that this is common. I don’t think even one vegan is vegan just to show off some kind of privelege. This is just a childish and unrealistic caricature that does not exist in reality.
I didn't say that. I said if you're buying the vegan substitutes and advertising that fact, that makes you privileged. I've seen it many times. There are even some in this post. People that eat vegan because they have limited choices don't advertise it. People that want to feel superior over others will express how much of a vegan they are.
Congratulations, you're finally getting it. They are two different people. There are people that eat vegan because they have no choice. Those people are not privileged. There are people that call themselves vegan and make sure everyone knows they are vegan. Those are the vegans the original comment was talking about, which someone took offense to. That's why I pointed out the difference.
It took a little effort, but at least you got there.
What if I can’t afford those things, still eat rice and beans, but I tell people I’m vegan to avoid awkward social interactions?
But would you? Would you really turn down free food simply because you're vegan? Would you really tell people you're vegan to avoid an "awkward social interaction" when offered free food? If so, that makes you privileged. Being able to pick and choose food makes you privileged, whether it's vegan or not. That's the difference.
Wow...so you've been so poor that you can only afford rice and beans, and you've been offered free food that you turned down because it wasn't vegan? Really? See, that's the kind of smugness OP was talking about. You put your veganism above securing food, and you're proud of it. You willingly sacrificed your self-preservation for your principles. And now you're advertising it.
You literally asked me the question and are now chastising me for my answer.
Yes, because you claim to be poor yet still call being vegan a lifestyle choice. And you chastise others in your position for not making that choice. Poor people don't get to make those choices. Poor people do whatever it takes to survive. Poor people live on that desert island every single day and have to make difficult decisions. Poor take whatever they can get and are greatful for it. Poor people don't have the privilege to turn down food.
Maybe begin to recognize your own privilege before telling other people what to do.
I pointed out self-preservation to point out that vegans don’t go around attacking poor people and don’t expect people to keep their principles in those situations. I made a choice I don’t expect other people to make.
Then literally the very next sentence, you contradict yourself.
I point my criticisms at the people I know in real life who shop at the exact same stores I do and make similar amounts of money, but still use poor people as an excuse not to change their own behavior.
You claim to be poor, claim to not attack people who are poor, then chastise people who are poor for not making the same choices that you do. You are a hypocrite. Have a nice day.
Vegan: no animal products. No butter, no eggs, having to be well-informed (as others have stated) and know about the content of every bit of everything you buy, and making choices on that basis instead of on cost.
Even then, how many of the products you buy and use every day have depended on animal products for their manufacture? I'm willing to bet that a fair amount of human labor consumes and uses animal products to sustain themselves, even if there are no animal products in the thing you're buying. I don't think it's fair to compartmentalize that away from purchasing decisions. The people who put your flat pack MDF furniture in a box, did they have a chicken sandwich on their lunch break? The people who are paving the roads and maintain the rails on which the products you ultimately buy, are they wearing leather boots?
Everyone depends, to some degree or another, on the use of animal products, either as food or for some other purpose. Even vegans.
Edit: Like I said above, reducing dependence on animal products is probably a good idea, but people who believe they have eliminated their dependence on animal products are patting themselves on the back for something they simply cannot accomplish.
Being Vegan is a choice for yourself so it’s a fallacy to argue that others are not Vegan, and saying it doesn’t help to try to make a difference unless everybody does it is also a fallacy.
So the argument is based on no less than 2 obvious fallacies. This should be pretty obvious, so question is if you are just a troll?
I'll say that this reaction does nothing to make me think you are approaching this with any objectivity.
The argument, to me, seems to be that it's impossible in the modern world as things stand to actually totally avoid animal products. That would seem like an issue that Veganism should be concerned with.
I see your point, I think, about it being an individual choice. But though I have heard of things like vegan shoes, I can see how saying those are vegan when you may not control all the inputs seems problematic.
Regardless, your response was so unpleasant that I don't think I'm much interested in continuing.
Yeah no reason to go to the moon if we can’t visit other planets yet. That’s the kind of logic you are arguing.
The vegan argument is to not contribute to animal suffering, you can’t control what other people do.
And avoiding suffering doesn’t help because there will still be suffering is about as stupid as it gets.
Because its not within any one vegans control whether a random factory worker has chicken for lunch. If there were businesses that only hired vegans and sold vegan products (there are, but very few), then vegans would obviously be buying things from there instead. If someone who isn’t vegan themselves uses this impossible purity test as an excuse not to make changes themselves, then they weren’t genuine about making any attempt in the first place.
Veganism is not about completely eliminating every use of animal products no matter what. It’s about reducing animal suffering and their exploitation as long as it’s possible and practicable.
“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”
The privilege is being able to choose to eat that way out of a sense of morality or fashion rather for the reason that it’s literally all there is to eat. The privilege is being able to turn your nose up at perfectly edible food for no other reason than that it’s got a bit of egg, honey, or butter in it without having to worry about starving to death. The privilege is also having access to such an abundance and variety of food that you can maintain a vegan diet year round and not have to fear that you won’t meet all the calorie, protein, and vitamin requirements you need to stay alive and healthy while much of the world is in a constant struggle to scrape together enough calories of any kind to stay alive.
that’s great, but most vegans you speak to will tell you that we aren’t telling the people who lack the privilege we have to go vegan. we’re asking our neighbors, our bosses, our friends - people in similar if not the very same life circumstances as us - to walk a couple aisles over from where they buy the meat in the grocery store and buy some beans instead.
people love to bring up the privilege thing, but i would argue that it is entirely irrelevant. the entire point of veganism is to do what is reasonably possible and practicable. not to tell people who don’t have the privilege to be so discerning about their diet that they are going to hell or something.
Well, that’s getting into the difference between veganism and vegetarianism.
That aside, although meat is expensive from a cost and input perspective, it is a very efficient and dense source of calories and protein.
Outside of a first world or industrial agricultural setting, they also have the advantage of being able to convert food sources humans cannot eat into one we can, while to a great degree being able to tend to themselves.
Goats, sheep and chickens can have large numbers managed by a few children with sticks, and also produce non-vegan animal byproducts which can be sold for cash.
This is also before hunting is considered.
While vegetarianism and veganism can be practiced outside of a first world context, and indeed have been for thousands of years, they do come with sacrifices that are significantly easier to make with more money or in a post agricultural region.
Eschewing cheese, eggs and honey is not a difficult thing to do for me if I wanted, but there are places where that’s just leaving good food uneaten, or money unearned.
That’s I believe what’s being referred to when it’s called a privilege.
Except meat is the least efficient protein source. You need land to grow animal feed, which largely could be used to grow crops to feed humans. You put in like 100 calories to get 1 calorie out.
Not all land is suitable for crop cultivation, which was the point I was making. In subsistence or low tech farming areas, animals forage on land unsuitable for crop production and eat food unsuitable for human consumption. They’re not eating feed, they’re eating wild weeds and grass we can’t. They’re eating insects, miscellaneous seeds, small plants and whatever they find.
Do you think that if you’re farming to have enough food to feed your family and maybe some leftovers to sell, that you’re going to choose to produce something markedly inefficient in comparison to other options?
Subsistence farmers today aren’t stupid. They’re not wasting 90% of their food because they want a hamburger. They raise goats and chickens because they feed themselves and you let your kid who’s too young to do heavy work follow them with a stick to keep them from wandering off. They raise cattle and donkeys because they can forage, and what they can’t forage is more than made up for by using them to work the land or as beasts of burden.
There’s a reason we domesticated animals. We didn’t just immediately start giving them feed corn and locking them in cages.
It’s a privilege to be able to ignore a readily available source of food.
It’s a privilege to live in a society where we set aside land to grow huge amounts of food to feed our food.
It’s a privilege to not have to know specifically where your food is coming from.
It’s kind of ignorant to think that people who don’t have those privileges must be foolish enough to choose what you think is an inefficient option, and to not consider why they would make that choice.
Found it interesting to discover that the money here in the UK is made from animal parts - I think certain notes contain tallow? Definitely seems like it is impossible to fully exclude animal products from your daily life unless you go off the grid and try to be an entirely self sufficient vegan homesteader, which, while extremely difficult and likely dangerous is still an option open to those preaching a vegan lifestyle. Vegans often do not actually practise their philosophy as far as is practical and possible, they all draw the line somewhere so far as how willing they are to sacrifice their comfort and convenience. Like there are no fully vegan cars - the glue is animal based, even if you opt out of a leather interior. Public transport or taking a job you can walk to are alternatives in the UK if you actually cared about benefitting from animals as little as possible, but few vegans will make sacrifices which are actually inconvenient once you get down to the nitty gritty
Imo being a vegan so far as diet and basic lifestyle changes goes is fairly easy for some people (they don’t really like meat to begin with, know how to cook and enjoy it, no real health issues, disposable income) but the real test of how much they actually believe in these ideas is in if they consistently give up more niche forms of animal exploitation wherever they can
I think "the money is made from animal parts and there are no fully vegan cars so you're arbitrarily picking and choosing when to be vegan" misses the point of ideological veganism. I'm not a vegan, but I believe the goal for ideological vegans (in contrast with those who are vegan for medical reasons) is to minimize suffering and exploitation within reason for the specific reasons you said. No one can be 100% free of animal parts unless they become an off-the-grid self-sustained homestead.
Vegans know that. But most come to the conclusion that just because you can't live 100% animal free doesn't mean you can't try to get to 80% because you want to live your life in a manner you consider morally and ethically consistent with your collective ideologies. You get as close as you can within reason depending on the various constraints of your individual circumstances. "I am still a vegetarian, and I try to be a vegan, but I occasionally cheat. If there's a cheese pizza on the band bus, I might sneak a piece," to quote Weird Al Yankovic.
I'd say most people, including vegans, have more than one goal in life. The "lines in the sand" you're referring to are at the intersection of their goal to minimize suffering and their goal to, say, keep living. Like if a vegan were told by their doctor, "If you don't start eating meat, you'll die from this weird disease," the vegan likely wouldn't be like, "Well, I might as well indulge in eggs and milk and all other animal products now since I can't be 100% vegan" and chow down. They'd probably eat just the amount prescribed by their doctor, because they still don't like eating meat because its origins bother them.
I would be totally fine with them drawing their lines wherever if they let other people do the same, but many vegans will take the stance that consuming animal products or meat is always wrong, and never justified, no matter what. Many vegans actually would disagree that it is justified to eat animal products if a doctor recommended it, they’d say there are no nutrients found within those products which can’t be found in plants. They’d also be against eating gifted non-vegan food, many are against feeding cats a nonvegan diet too
Um… Ima call bullshit real quick. I don’t think you have ever met a single person who is as you’ve drawn in your cartoon here.
Also, why would a vegan or vegetarian be obligated to eat an animal-based product just because it was a gift? That would be weird as fuck. You don’t eat sausage or cheese? Here’s a sausage and cheese basket. It’s a gift; you have to eat it.
And finally, you are suggesting that vegans kill cats. Cats are obligate carnivores. Vegan cat owners know this. A “vegan cat” will not survive long. Suggesting vegans force cats to be vegans is just an absurd falsehood.
Re: vegan cats, they actually can do well on a properly planned/supplemented vegan diet, although more research is needed. If you’re against nutritionally complete vegan kibble, you should be against all kibble
“However, there is little evidence of adverse effects arising in dogs and cats on vegan diets. In addition, some of the evidence on adverse health impacts is contradicted in other studies. Additionally, there is some evidence of benefits, particularly arising from guardians’ perceptions of the diets. Given the lack of large population-based studies, a cautious approach is recommended. If guardians wish to implement a vegan diet, it is recommended that commercial foods are used.”
Vegans literally are suggesting solutions to the growing population because in almost every situation, it is much more efficient by land and water use for people to eat plant-based rather than meat. It’s only a “first world hill to die on” if you think poor people can’t eat plants. Sorry but I don’t think this is a very accurate take…
"Meat from herd mammals" is not at all the sum total of use of animal products. Should we all be eating less beef? Sure, I can get behind that. None? I'm okay with that, too. What about eggs, cheese, butter - and that's only referring to things we eat, not things we use for other purposes.
People also continue to benefit from the work of slaves in the past and even present. What’s your point? Do you think slavery is ethical? Is someone choosing to avoid products created from slave labour not a more ethical choice?
I remember that shit. Most of them thought that Facebook “going public” meant that everyone could publish their Minions memes without permission. 🤦🏻♂️
Yeah, but the guy that thinks sharing snuff films at work ok is likely to also be the kind of guy that is vehemently homophobic…and I mean the more scientific definition where exposure causes physical disgust or discomfort as opposed to the more political definition of just not viewing them as equals. I don’t think it’s a huge leap to assume this is the kind of person that would have the same visceral experience they shared with OP…especially if OP were to imply the massive, throbbing high definition photo was also actually gore.
Not only that, but “it’s known that I don’t like gore videos” like it’s some common thing that comes up in conversation. I’ve worked at some raunchy “boys will be boys” type places and the worst we would do is surprise each other with some gay porn images or stuff like ‘two girls one cup.’
Not exactly sending them to coworkers, but I did kind of refer a coworker to one once.
I work in 911 dispatch, it’s kind of hard not to end up a little desensitized to some crazy shit. We once had a call about some kind of industrial accident, someone’s arm caught in a machine or something along those lines. Obviously not going to share too many specific details about the incident, but we did have a teams on location ready to do a field amputation if needed, but luckily they were able to get the person out without any major injuries.
So our conversations tended to be about a lot of the crazy gory fucked up things we’d taken calls about or otherwise seen or heard about, and I mentioned the Russian lathe accident video to one of my coworkers (don’t look that up if you’re not the kind of fucked up who can deal with that sort of thing, it’s a guy getting caught in a heavy duty lathe and spun around and mashed against the machine until someone comes and hits the emergency stop, at which point there’s nothing much left of him)
That piqued her interest, and she went and watched it on her phone at her next break.
I wouldn’t send the video to anyone, especially not out of the blue, and when it comes up I warn people not to look it up if they’re the type of person who would be significantly disturbed by it. In general I won’t even mention it to people who don’t work either in some sort of emergency services or medical sort of field where we have to occasionally deal with that kind of thing, or in a machine shop where they’re working around those kinds of machines, and even then it’s something that only gets brought up to certain people in certain contexts.
Theoretically, Biden could do it and not be prosecuted.
But if he ordered a member of the military to do it, they are required to refuse illegal orders. I don’t know the rules about illegal orders but I bet this would fall under that. At the same time, the President can pardon people convicted in military court so that’s not much of a deterrent.
Similarly if he ordered a civilian (say, CIA) to assassinate Trump, that person could be tried. But again, the President’s pardon power makes federal charges not much of a threat.
BUT — the President cannot grant pardons for convictions in state courts. So anyone involved would be in trouble if it happened in a US state. And if the Supreme Court did not make the President immune from state-level prosecution, Biden could be tried for being involved… but it seems unlikely that they would go for “the President is immune from federal prosecution but not state prosecution.”
Of course, all this show how insane and dangerous the idea of Presidential immunity is. It’s a terrible idea.
I am super duper NOT an expert but I believe the President can pardon crimes in DC, so that would get around the state court issue. Same for outside the US: I’m not sure states can punish crimes outside of the US. Even if they can, they may not have laws on the books to handle that sort of thing.
In theory that gets around the legal issue but then you’re getting into practical issues: Trump is protected by the Secret Service so either it will be extremely difficult from a practical perspective, or you would have to get quite a few people to go along with the conspiracy. Again, this highlights what a terrible idea immunity is because the possibilities get horrifying really fast.
According to the arguments currently being made to protect Trump from prosecution. The premise of the question was “If presidential immunity is absolute.”
They argue many things, but very few of them really hold up to real life, so I personally don’t put too much weight on them any more. I trust that the legal system will shoot those arguments down if not fast, then at least efficiently. IMO it is basically just is a method of extending these cases for last as long as possible, and I am surprised that nobody can do anything against that!
NSA is civilian, they work closely with CSS which is the military side. The determining factor for civilian vs military is whether the people working there are enlisted soldiers/commissioned officers or civilians who just get hired like other jobs.
I have blocked the most annoying instances, I used to just keep blocking all communities from them that I saw in my feed, but that list quickly became too long to even open in my app…
Yes, hence they reveal that they think the staus quo is the correct way of doing things… Though to be fair, being a little reactionary is hard wired in human brains and is especially prone to surface for those politically illiterate (or idiots in Greek).
Drinking laws are local, or at least county level in most places. My town doesn’t have any about drinking in public at all, just about drunkenness. The next town over is no public drinking at all, not even on your porch.
So there’s no single answer, it will depend on where your are within the US. Couldn’t say anything about Canada though, never been and don’t know enough.
Be warned though, you may not be able to board a flight if you’re drunk.
Las Vegas doesn’t give a fuck how drunk you are to enter the airport. Literally had to guide and push my drunk coworker through TSA. I’m not sure if he even remembers getting on the plane.
I always assume those No Drunks rules is just to make sure the loud drunks stay quiet. Many people have a few drinks in the airport bar and stumble to the gate. As long as the drunk isn’t being loud then they are mostly ignored.
kbin.life
Top