They’ll go ahead and say it’s unfortunate and that they’re sending thoughts and prayers to the family affected
I would be very surprised if Abbott did even that. Or anyone who voted for him, honestly. If they say it's unfortunate they acknowledge it was an unintended outcome of putting those buoys and razor wire in there. Meaning, it's an outcome of something they did. They'll just say, "well they shouldn't have been there" and move on to the next person to hate.
Imagine if the judge reading a list of charges on you followed up each one with “you dumb fuck”.
What you’re saying makes no sense.
All I said is keep personal insults to yourself. You know nothing about the people you communicate with on Lemmy. You have zero insight into their life, their experiences, their education or anything that would give you the right to insult them personally.
Just state your opinion and stfu. Full stop. If you’re unable to keep personal insults to yourself, don’t comment. It’s very simple.
Judges do that kind of thing all the time. They literally comment on the proceedings and people in the vernacular in addition to using their position of power to influence the outcome.
I know enough about the people writing stuff on the internet to break the usual social rules of decorum: some of them say vile, reprehensible, hateful, inhuman drivel and that is enough to insult them.
What are you really saying here? Are you truly suggesting that when someone implies “hey, this little kids tragic death is acceptable because they were in violation of a law” it’s wrong to tell them that they’re a monster?
“Waaaa don’t respond to me I don’t like discussion I just want to defend people that applaud the death of a child in peace! Also, despite the fact that we’re discussing child murder, please everyone understand that being mean on the Internet is worse.”
The irony of this comment in response to me calling someone a monster for implying a child deserved to die in a trap because they were in violation of civil tort is not lost on me.
The proper way to deal with someone you dissagree with is, downvote, respond without a personal attack (doesn’t help your point in any way) and block if you really hate them.
This has nothing to do with the content in the discussion. We want this place to be a forum for discussion where everyone is treated with respect, this doesn’t work if we let people who we agree with do whatever they want.
If you have some sort of mental processing issue which precludes your ability to understand what context is, you’re excused somewhat.
This was someone’s kid, just like you. If nobody points out how horrible these sentiments are, where will we end up? “They were a criminal” isn’t relevant to what sounds like an excuse for justifying their death.
I edited this to be less vitriolic, I originally asked you to choke on a book, but let’s try the civil route.
How is the literal child a criminal when they had zero say in anything that happened to them? What’s wrong with you people? Honestly? A child died needlessly, someone calls them a criminal and says they deserved it, and your entire contribution is to tell people not to be mean to the guy calling a dead kid a criminal and saying they deserved to be punished? How did you get so utterly disconnected from any form of empathy or even just rationality?
So then you think a dead kid is an acceptable punishment to trying to enter the US? A kid that had no say whatsoever in being there? The kid wasn’t a criminal they were a victim. Period.
My first guess was something like a brain tumor making him hear voices and changing his behavior, but:
two other suitcases were found, also with human remains, nearby along the intracoastal
and
police searched the apartment where they found evidence of a grisly crime: blood spatter throughout the home, cleaning products with blood on it, drag marks and a large amount of blood in the living room, dining room and master bathroom
I’m no criminal psychologist, but that doesn’t seem like the behavior of someone mentally unsound (well, aside from the serial killing, anyway).
Almost like adding unsupervised obstacles to a dangerous environment contributes to harmful outcomes. Somebody should get paid to write up an article on the subject for the Journal of Foreseeable Consequences.
If I booby-trap my home and somebody gets killed trying to break in, I (rightfully) go to prison for murder. If a politician booby-traps a border (with exceptions for situations involving war) and somebody gets killed trying to cross, they should end up behind bars too.
Luckily, ignorance of the law does not insulate those individuals from consequences if they act on their incorrect beliefs. Just wish we’d apply the same line of thinking without regard for the perpetrator’s level of political influence.
Being Gen X, I’m not surprised that less sex is going on than my generation. We were left unsupervised, and we didn’t have cellphones so we could disappear with our partners pretty easily. Today that isn’t the case anymore.
I'm genx and lived at home while paying for college and working full time. it wasn't the most ideal situation for socializing but I did have sex regularly inside and outside of the house
I realize you didn’t explicitly ask for feedback in your comment but when you use that format, it works best if you choose contradictory views. Otherwise, you just end up looking like a moron.
Glad there’s people like you who have it all figured out. Suck it. Besides if you’re talking about knowing your audience, Better Off Dead would like a word.
Ahh and where were you when an experimental mRNA jab was pushed en masse, people lost their jobs and acquired health complications because of this "vaccine " that didn’t even help?
But something tells me your double standards speak volumes.
You trying to tell me that the same people denying abortion access because “think of the children” are the same people who don’t care about the children? Say it isn’t so!
This is because most healthcare professionals know that abortion is a critical component OF maternity care, so they're fleeing these areas. Pregnancies go bad. A LOT. The only way to fix that very often is the exact same medical procedures used to provide elective abortions.
You can't selectively outlaw certain medical procedures and expect good outcomes.
I find it sad that you feel no empathy for the kids (or their parents), and that your first thought is to assign blame. I don't see the point in saying something so callous, but perhaps your intention is to spread hate. You wouldn't be a hateful person now, would you? I suppose only you know the real answer to that. Good luck to you, I know you'll figure it out one day.
In Honduras fearing for their safety every day and in destitute poverty. Do you honestly think they’d be sending their kids here if they were safe at home? Jesus fucking Christ dude get a clue. Try talking to people who are doing this and learn something
Yeah there's all sorts of situation ls where someone might try ro get there kid here. It's sad bit largely a failure of actions and policies we have had in the region. It doesn't matter if their parents were with them, left behind or waiting for the kid at the destination. All that matters is that there's a kid dead in a inhumane death trap that should never have been built. Biden should mobilize the national guard and have it removed since abbot isn't gonna do it.
There are all sorts of reasons unaccompanied minors attempt this journey; information about this is widely available if you read. It’s clear the original question here was intended to try to find a reason to blame the victim and their family rather than the actual cause of their death
The reasoning is so clear and obvious that it doesn't require any sources apparently. Just go ask these people yourself who are doing this to find out why 🙄
I’m going to take a step back from the topic itself.
I think the real problem here is that we can’t agree on what “fact” is. Both sides are certain that they are correct. Both sides can present what they believe is scientific evidence. How do we move forward from that? Both sides simply discredit the sources used in the science the other side is presenting. It seems that both sides are using brute force to push their belief. And that seems to just make the other side angrier and more dug in. How do we have conversations anymore?
It’s both. I’ve been called a Trump supporter, a “Jew shill”, and a liberal snowflake, all in the same week. I find it fascinating, talking to very opinionated people. Doesn’t matter what it is. Even if I think they’re right about whatever that topic is, I find that people become incredibly hostile if you ask them something they don’t have an answer for, if it might challenge their beliefs.
The problem is you’re approaching this from a place of complete ignorance on what the science actually is. You’re saying “both sides have science,” but that’s fundamentally not true. One side has the entire fields of medicine and psychology, which contain some internal disagreement on issues around the margins, but overwhelmingly agree on basic concepts. The other side latches on to single studies or portions of conclusions of studies taken out of context that confirm their existing beliefs. If there were science behind the Republican position on these issues, you’d be able to cite it here, so please do
I find that the people who purport to an academic view of fights over human rights tend to be those whose rights are not (now) in question, and that they find more entertainment in the emotions at play than in empathizing with those who feel said emotions makes me question their willingness or ability to change their own stance.
Neutrality is a starting point. Where you choose to go from there is an expression of your character.
We can’t have conversations because one side argues in bad faith, makes shit up, and behaves like fucking gremlins by defunding services then claiming they don’t work.
Sure, step away from the topic itself. Blue states don’t have post birth abortions, slavery did not benefit African American, climate change is not a hoax, and Rosa Parks was protesting racism. Claiming otherwise isn’t “alternative facts”, they’re just fucking lies.
I mean, liberals and leftists lie too, but not in the same way. I’ve read right wing articles from “climate activists” where googling the author’s name reveals they’re associated with the oil industry. Judicial Watch misrepresented IRS transcripts and created articles linking to the transcripts, claiming they said things they just do not say.
I don’t run into those same kinds of lies from liberals and the left. It’s notable.
A long time ago we actually agreed on a process for fact finding. It is one that has served us well for hundreds of years (more so in the last 150 years, once we really had a foundational understanding of the world based on previously established facts). The whole “you look at the world, draw conclusions and test them” - system is not new and it works. That is science. It’s not a question of what people believe to be fact, but in believing in the process of establishing them. One side is systematically trying to undermine the very basis of science. It is impossible to use science or data or facts to convince someone like that that their position is wrong.
The subject at hand is accreditation of a course in psychology,. Tell me how you on one hand call transgenderism a mental illness and on the other refuse to teach - in an AP course - the subject of gender and sexuality. I’d submit there are a number subjects we can “both sides” about, but what’s happening in Florida ain’t it. There’s nothing to be debated here anyway, College Board (may they step on Lego) says if you don’t teach the AP curriculum, you don’t get the credit.
That’s just the thing. One side isn’t using scientific evidence. There is a process to science. You can’t use the simplified version of gender taught to kids and say it’s scientific. Just like you can’t say that the year is 365 days long like kids are taught at first. Then they learn about leap years and it’s actually 365 and a quarter days. Then they learn about leap seconds. Ok so then there must be some fraction of a second in addition to the 365.25 days. Then they learn about wobble, the gravity of the planets, and everything else that makes it not a constant. It’s something that has to be analyzed every year to decide if one is needed yet. It’s complicated. So just like kids are taught 365 days in a year, they are taught that there are 2 genders that are caused by one of two combinations of chromosomes. Then they learn about intersex people and people born with vaginas who have an x chromosome and people with 3 chromosomes, etc.
So sure, if you’re a child it’s ok to think there are two genders chosen based on a single chromosome difference. But it’s not ok to pretend it’s that simple and call it truth and scientific evidence that your teachers taught it that way.
The fact that you even think that “both sides” is a valid argument, means that your opinion is literally worthless.
Because either you are intentionally arguing in bad faith and you know you’re lying, or you actually believe that. Which means you lack the mental capacity to see something objectively.
Group 1: I understand that transgenderism is legitimate and supported by science. People should be able to identify as the gender they feel most comfortable.
Group 2: I want to FUCKING kill EVERYONE in group one!
Centrists: Why can’t both sides just see eye to eye already and get along? I am so smart.
One side presets a handful random jankie ass studies as science, the other side presents mountains of massive rigorous studies, that people have rerun and pressure tested.
There is no “both sides.”
One side is using the scientific method, the other is cherry picking crap to support a belief they’ve already formed.
I think the sky is green, and that homeless dude down on the corner agrees with me. But everyone else just insists that the sky is blue and calls me crazy. Why can’t we agree on facts? I know the sky is green so I’m never going to change my mind, but why can’t we just agree? How do we fix that?
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.