His mother is Patricia Buckley, sister of William F Buckley and James Buckley. I guess his impeccable conservative lineage just became more “peccable.”
If by “hoarding all the good drugs” you mean keeping out weed in favor of so, so many opiods, then yes. Apparently SW Missouri is a reasonable driving distance for some Texans to get some weed. An old Texan man in a big truck is often about to spend hundreds of dollars on weed. It’s for their short sojourn in Missouri, they assure me.
The m249 machine gun has a cyclic rate of fire of at least 650 rounds per minute with a sustained rate of fire exceeding 100 rounds per minute. From a stable firing position and with the aid of a bipod, it is possible to accurately lay down sustained suppressing fire on a mass of targets at will, providing that spare barrels and ammunition containers are at hand.
There’s plenty of shooting ranges! If you go to a rifle range with an automatic gun rental, you can get pretty close. It’s expensive, but it helps to be prepared and practice.
If you stand on a soapbox and trade rhetoric with a dictator you never win ... That's what they do so well: they seduce people. But if you ridicule them, bring them down with laughter, they can't win. You show how crazy they are.
I’ve been saying for years that you cannot win a bad faith argument in good faith.
When Tucker Carlson inevitably runs for president, nobody should converse with him, at all, without mentioning the fact that he doesn’t have enough testosterone to grow a decent beard.
Just emasculate him.
Fight in bad faith. You do no win a bad faith argument in good faith.
Edit: for clarity, if he did end up growing a decent beard, you then make fun of him for being such a pussy that he grew a beard to try to shut people up about his low testosterone. “What a sensitive pussy.”
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Also why Jim Crow laws became a thing and the civil rights movement, etc etc
We had to do it all the fuck over again in the 1960s cause those plantation owners weren’t lined up at gallows in Georgia like they should have been. Fuck everyone involved in the southern strategy…it’s all cause Sherman didn’t burn enough
When did they write the letters? Was it before any of the details of the case had been made public or after? Were they personally written or did PR firms send them out as a matter of course? I don’t really give a shit about celebrities or their personal lives and I’m all for a good old fashioned internet pile on, but for some reason I’d like to know the details first.
After he was found guilty, before he was sentenced
Masterson had been facing 30 years to life, which is the maximum sentence allowed by law. His defense was asking for 15 years to life, so those who wrote letters to the judge were likely aware he would be getting at least 15 years in prison.
Idunno. If my best friend was facing between 15 and 30 years in prison for multiple rapes, I don’t think I would be begging the judge to reduce his sentence because he’s such a good guy aside from the raping
a long time ago, the government paid farmers to keep fields fallow, to keep down production and keep prices up. you know… price fixing, like jesus intended when he invented capitalism. these subsidies are still around, because the only thing republicans hate worse then government spending is farmers not voting for them, so you can apply for, and get, subsidies on the land in now subdivisions, and the government will give you a check for not growing cotton on your lawn.
Well, I’d say some sort of blind trust. That way, the only way they can influence their investments is making good decisions for the overall economy. Toss in some restrictions to require they avoid boomer-chip stocks. (Ie, s&p500 type investments would be okay, but not msft or any specific company. ETFs in general are too…easy to get around though.
Yeah, I agree but the problem with that is they can still time macro events that affect index funds and ETFs when they know about something big before the public, like covid.
It should be managed and timed by someone independent and the trust just pays a salary or allowance on a schedule.
Peter Singer the “father of the animal rights movement” and really interesting philosopher, is I think a vegan but he argues for a disclosure number on eggs and chicken saying how many chickens there were per acre, because he argues that IF the chickens lived a happy life and were killed without distress, it’s ethical to eat them, and at some really low density the evidence shows they are happy.
He also makes a claim that there are circumstances where it’s ethical to eat meat like if the airplane serves you the wrong meal and if you reject it they will throw it away, because the animal is already dead and your decision doesn’t incentivize more death, and demanding a new meal wastes food.
So, that’s what living true values sounds like to me. Not picking a rule and sticking by it, but taking each decision and weighing it against your values.
I disagree with this. The notion of ending a happy life is more cruel than ending a suffering life. How bout we just don’t raise animals for slaughter?
If you’re able to choose to not eat meat then I believe that is the morally correct choice.
This is under the impression that life as a concept is good. I know personally that I’d rather never have been born. Being born isn’t some cosmic lottery that souls just float around in the void hoping they win.
As much as I’m generally on your side, that’s not honestly answering the premise, which is that those chickens do live a happy live.
I personally don’t seek so-called ethical meat because every example I’ve looked into has been a lie, and if it does exist it’s not worth my time to comb through supply lines in search for a product whose origin I would always worry about, and that I can do perfectly well without.
Imagine you’re living a happy life. One day someone comes up to you and ends that life. You don’t know why it happened, but your happy life has now been ended. How is that any less disturbing than a chicken’s experience?
I agree with the ethical meat comment. That’s why I don’t bother and just eat plants.
Me personally? No life. I don’t want to be here and even if I had the best life a human could have, I would still be contributing to suffering in some form.
So why would anyone listen to you about how to live it, especially ethically? No, really I am asking. I don’t want someone in my government heading up an agency that they don’t think should exist, or someone at my job who doesn’t want to work there, or date someone who doesn’t want to be with me.
If you don’t want to exist that is your baggage but for those of us who do why would we trust you to tell us how to exist?
Ethics is for us humans to figure out how to have a good life with other people also having one. It isn’t for serving some abstract concept. When you start the Peter Singer games you turn it from a practical art to worship of some secular idol.
I don’t expect anyone to listen to me. Read the comments here. If anything my opinion has done a pretty good job of uniting people against how I view things.
You don’t have to trust me or listen to my views. However, everyone that’s responded to me has implied that I should exist as they do.
If ethics as a concept has the job of focusing solely on humans having a good life then it’s a failure.
This kind of edgy comment has no place in real discussion, because of you were serious about it, you wouldn’t be able to post it because you’d be dead.
Your comment demeans and trivializes suicidal ideation.
I am a survivor of suicide, which is why I take this kind of tripe seriously.
Throwing doubts about how serious people are about suicide is important. Wanting to kill yourself is a sign of an illness, not a position one reasons themselves into.
I have CPTSD which if you or anyone reading doesn’t know is continued, long term traumatic experiences. I’m much older than my “edgy” comments seem at 42. My life experience has led to my illness, but reorganizing and unraveling the knot of that experience has led to this view of life not being something I’m happy to have to continue. The real kicker is that having stripped away the “life is worth living” propaganda has given me some peace. However, there isn’t anything on this planet that is more corrosive than happy people telling you to be happy.
It’s not melodrama and if you can’t gain any knowledge from what I’ve said, that’s on you.
I’ve not had the best experience with life and just as your experience has painted your opinion in a more positive light, mine has painted mine negatively. It doesn’t discount my view or bolster yours.
It makes sense to eat food that would otherwise be thrown away.
It does not make sense to say killing an animal is justified because they were happy or it was done humanely.
Doesn’t sound like he has values to me. Sounds like he has exceptions. It’s a good thing people with ‘true values’ don’t have to prove them to you, lol.
Doesn’t sound like he has values to me. Sounds like he has exceptions.
I mean, regardless how you feel about them, those are values. Values in this case as made up of inclusions and exclusions, to say that his values are “exceptions” because they’re different than your inclusions and exclusions is condescending and frankly wrong.
Why won’t that dreg just die already? The Utility Monster has been known since it’s introduction and is an unsolvable problem for them. Also it doesn’t actually have calculations, it has opinions with weights. I can argue two radically different courses of actions just by playing with the values I assign to the opinions. Plus humans really do not operate according to it, nothing evolution has done for us would wire us to think and act accordingly.
It’s the kinda idea that most people have at least once and then throw it away when they see it can’t do anything for them except make them and the people around them miserable. The Good Place had it right.
Personally, I find a lot of Peter Singer’s arguments to be pretty questionable. As for some of the ones you’ve mentioned:
For one, killing humans, no matter how humanely the means, is seen by most to be an act of cruelty. I do not want to be killed in my sleep, so why is it okay to assume that animals would be okay with it? While he is a utilitarian and doesn’t believe in rights, killing a sentient being seems to me to have much greater negative utility than the positive utility of the enjoyment of eating a chicken.
Also, farming animals for slaughter will always be destructive towards habitats and native species. Even if broiler chickens were kept alive for their natural lifespan of 3-7 years instead of 8 weeks to alleviate any kind of ethical issue with farming them, there is still an opportunity and environmental cost to farming chickens. We could use that land for to cultivate native species and wildlife, or for growing more nutritious and varied crops for people to eat, yet instead we continue to raze the amazon rainforest to make more land for raising farm animals and growing feed. De-densification of farms would only make the demand for farmland even greater than it already is.
Finally, the de-densification of farms would mean a significant increase in the costs of mear production. We’d be pricing lower income groups out of eating meat, while allowing middle- and upper-class folks to carry on consuming animal products as usual. We should not place the burdens of societal progress on the lower class.
People like him make a point of having full consistent systems of thought. So at best his opinion happens to be correct which is not the same as being correct for the right reasons. Even a stopped clock etc.
Eating meat is ethical because meat/dairy is the primary source of B12. You’ll literally die without it. You can technically get B12 from, like, seaweed, but that’s not easily and readily available. Mammals are.
I’m never going to agree that it is unethical to consume animals because humans would not be here if we did not consume animals. Animal consumption wasn’t some accident in human history I need to feel bad about. It wasn’t an unethical choice. It’s the result of evolution. This angle of veganism will never work on me. But I can be convinced to consume less meat and support better farming methods.
This is what happens when your culture doesn’t consume any animal products:
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.