Yes but are these Impossible Hot Dogs made from the dregs of plants that were too disgusting to use for any other purpose? If they can’t meet that high bar then I don’t know if I even want them.
Hell yeah pig lips and assholes! I know exactly what I’m eating and it’s delicious. Waste not, want not!
Although, after having an impossible burger, which was surprisingly good, I’d try an impossible dog or brat for sure. Can’t hurt the cholesterol levels I’d imagine.
There’s a food truck in my town that serves vegan hot dogs, and they are awesome. If Impossible can manage to make theirs half that good, I’ll probably buy them over the real meat ones even though I’m not a vegan.
My only problems with Impossible products is they’re usually quite a bit saltier than actual meat and of course that it’s usually more expensive then meat products. If they fixed both of those problems I’d be okay with replacing a good percentage of my meat consumption with them.
It’s been a little while since I checked, but the last time I was thinking of making chilli, I decided against it because the ground beef was too expensive. I use the fattier/cheaper beef, and depending on which store I checked, the Impossible/Beyond products were either slightly cheaper than real meat, or the same price. Of all the shops I checked, the cheapest option ended up being Impossible or Beyond.
I say this without judgement as a fellow carnist, but you can definitely get away with eating less meat than you think. It’s just a matter of figuring out how to prep and cook other protein sources.
I’ve got myself up to “almost vegan” except for when visiting family. Next step is bringing my own grillables lol that’ll be to-do, I just know it
Yeah I don't want to be a hypocrite like some so called americans. He is not even a possibility for me now and I might even vote for his opponent to show how much my morals and religion mean to me.
My SO went to that program and deals with lifelong trauma from that place. They’re constantly telling me about another person that went through the program with them that committed suicide. It’s really depressing.
I’ve been reading this over the past few days since you posted it, I’m on chapter 69, and just wanted to thank you for sharing it. This is the most insane mind-fuck, eye opening read I’ve ever read. Even just experiencing this story 2nd hand through the words of the author is absolutely soul crushing. I can’t even begin to imagine what these kids have gone through.
I know! Someone else shared it and it has really stuck with me. I share it any time it’s relevant because his experience wasn’t that long ago and they aren’t the only ones.
And it’s a great line for the gun lobby. In a lot of ways, the NRA and gun manufacturers would prefer a Biden victory because gun sales spike when Democratic presidents get elected, as gun-nuts are certain every time it happens that this is the time, for real, that they’re “coming for our guns.” In other words, people panic buy rifles because they think a federal ban is coming. But the reality is that Dems will never push through sweeping anti-gun legislation because there are so many pro-2FA democrats out there that doing so would be ludicrously difficult and monumentally unpopular.
This is partly just blowback from everyone agreeing to use different vocabulary for governments we like vs governments we don’t. We never should have tolerated the blatant propaganda of the US having an “administration” while our adversaries have “regimes”.
There are lots of other examples of journalists using loaded vocabulary this way. Most of them escape me at the moment but I can think of a few, like “freedom fighters” vs “insurgents” or “terrorists”, and “police action” or “peacekeeping force” vs “occupation” or “invasion”.
Yeah, I want to see the TST’s tenets up there next to the commandments. That ought to stimulate some interesting discussions.
For those not familiar,
One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one’s own.
Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs.
People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one’s best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
This Supreme Court might decide to play favorites, maybe the next precedent is “only religions existing during the founding of the US can display texts in schools.” Just because previous courts protected the separation of church and state doesn’t mean this court has to abide by that precedent.
Just wait for an Islamic group to sue then. Or wait for Scientology to decide they don’t want to be a second tier religion and start suing.
Or an atheist group maybe. Idk there’s enough competition in religious zealots to make picking a favorite hard to do unless they just throw out the 1st ammendment prohibitions.
…when he was leased out to work at Hickman’s Family Farms
I love how the article opens with this, because leasing people like property is totally cool and fine in America, because old piece paper said it is ok.
Yeah. I know. I’m saying that it’s crazy to me (as a non American) that slavery is viewed as normal in 2024, because the US Constitution says it’s OK to buy, sell, lease people if they committed a crime.
Pursuant to T.C.A. § 41-2-120(a), any prisoner refusing to work or becoming disorderly may be confined in solitary confinement or subjected to such other punishment, not inconsistent with humanity, as may be deemed necessary by the sheriff for the control of the prisoners, including reducing sentence credits pursuant to the procedure established in T.C.A. § 41-2-111. Such prisoners refusing to work, or while in solitary confinement, shall receive no credit for the time so spent. T.C.A. § 41-2-120(b).
What does this mean? I assume the clause is moreso meant for unruly prisoners and not just simply refusing in the first place? And since this is state law, I’m guessing it can be very different across the others.
Good. It’s what he deserves. I was 9 or 10 when that happened and I remember thinking it was so gross and being confused why people were just like…cool with it? I’m glad people are calling him out now - better late than never, I guess.
I’m not saying it’s normal. I’m saying it was normalized in the past, and thankfully that attitude is changing now and we can see how gross it always was.
Yes, Nugent is a fucking pedophile. He absolutely isn’t alone in the world of rock in that, though.
I know this won’t be popular, but it’s for a few reasons:
It wasn’t and isn’t illegal.
Most people would look at her and see a hot woman and understand it.
This whole puritanical BS that if you are over 18 and find someone under 18 attractive, that makes you a pedophile, is a modern a theme. Back then people were free to admit that they found young women attractive without being labelled by so many to have a mental disorder.
I speak strongly about this because I think we are doing great damage to mental health to repeatedly claim it’s a mental disorder to have a completely normal and common biological attraction.
But don’t get me wrong, I 100% support protecting minors from predators. I agree these laws should exist, I just wish people would stop pretending that there is something wrong with the attraction itself.
You’re telling on yourself quite a bit here. Your mental health doesn’t have to suffer if you find a “biologically mature” woman attractive but after a certain age if you’re seeing a “hot woman” and not “a young girl” there definitely is some deviation from the norm.
We’re talking about sexual attraction to children that don’t know how to file their taxes and are just learning what it means to be an adult. If your sexual attraction to someone is purely physical and not affected by your rational mind telling you that they’re a kid then there really is a bit of a disconnect there.
Maybe you’re closer in age to them than I am, there’s certainly a range of “adult ages” where people are still developing mentally, but when you’re old enough that you’re finding a woman SEXUALLY attractive who is the age of your daughter or your friends’ daughters that’s a red flag and worth some introspection.
I’m perfectly comfortable with who I am attracted to. Don’t worry about my mental health. There is no telling on myself, I’m 100% open about it.
I just recognize that this is the same BS trauma that we’ve been inflicting on gay people by telling them that their perfectly normal and natural attraction is some kind of mental issue. Just like how I see through when someone claims gay people have a mental problem, I see through the implications that men being attracted to young women is indicative of some kind of mental issue.
but after a certain age if you’re seeing a “hot woman” and not “a young girl” there definitely is some deviation from the norm.
We are talking about a young woman in her prime reproductive years. Objectively speaking, evolutionarily, it would make sense that men are attracted to this. In fact, I would argue that if you don’t find them physically attractive, you are the one deviating from the norm. Now to be clear, don’t confuse what I’m saying with emotional and intellectual attractiveness.
We’re talking about sexual attraction to children
No we’re not, we’re talking about being attracted to women in their prime reproductive years. They are young and likely immature and we should have laws that protect them, but let’s not conflate that with the physical attraction being a mental illness.
I’m probably as old or older than you. I’ve talked to people in their 40s who I find completely emotionally immature and intellectually unattractive, and I’ve talked to teenagers whom I’ve found to be mature and the conversation to be intellectually stimulating. Although the latter is few and far between, and getting further apart as I age.
Would I want to have a relationship with them? No. Would I want to have sex with them? Sure.
I’m literally defending my position, you and the other poster are just attacking my character.
It’s fine, I get it. It’s some of the same exact pushback I saw when I was arguing in favor of rights for homosexuals back during the rise of their widespread acceptance.
You’re making the same arguments and even appealing to the same historic causes as pedophilia-acceptance advocates do.
This is an empty ad hominem that I don’t care about. I’m not arguing that pedophilia is normal, I’m pointing out that being attracted to young women is not pedophilia and should stop being labelled as such.
Don’t try to make your desire to have sex with teens a civil rights issue, it cheapens everything that LGBTQ+ people have suffered and fought for.
I view it as quite the opposite: by labelling a perfectly normal attraction as a mental disorder, you’re guilty of the same puritanical nonsense that we have fought against for the past few decades.
I’m really not trying to engage here but if you’re appealing to what makes biological sense then killing your sexual rivals and responding violently to aggression or stress are also perfectly normal and should be allowed by your reasoning.
You’re jumping through a lot of hoops to justify sexual relationships between people of vast maturity level and power imbalances.
The defining feature of human civilization is that we move beyond biological impulses
I’ve been very clear and explicit that I believe the laws should exist. And yet you’re still arguing that I’m saying that because it’s natural, it should still be legal.
Sorry, but it’s clear you aren’t arguing in good faith or you’ve completely shut yourself down and are not open to reason, so I’ll bow out.
Point is we treat those psychological violent urges and don’t brush them off as natural. We teach people how to cope with them. We don’t spend an awful lot of time justifying those impulses.
girls enter puberty so much earlier than boys, their capable of reproduction anywhere from 10-12. When you talk about “prime reproductive years,” know that it includes girls as young as 10. So… stop using that term. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and inferring that you actually mean girls that are on the very cusp of womanhood, like, ages 17-19, but others may not.
Women are hot, girls are not. Some girls can appear to be older than they are, and it’s confusing when confronted with a genuinely attractive woman that is not yet 18, because we’re caught between the confusing notions of “I am attracted to this person” and “this person is not yet old enough to to be engaged with in a socially conscious manner.” It’s not wrong to find the person attractive, it IS wrong to engage with them in a manner reserved for those that are fully realized adults. For my purposes, I’m putting adulthood at around age 22-25, when your brain is pretty much fully developed.
So with that being said, No, Jerry Seinfeld didn’t do a bad thing by thinking a 17 year old girl attractive, he DID do a bad thing by engaging with her as if she was a fully formed adult.
When you talk about “prime reproductive years,” know that it includes girls as young as 10.
Prime reproductive years for women is generally late teens to late 20s. I’ll keep using the term because I’m using it accurately, and it’s exactly the whole point: biologically speaking why would it be surprising that some men would find a women who is prime for reproduction attractive? It just makes perfect sense.
it’s confusing when confronted with a genuinely attractive woman that is not yet 18,
It’s only confusing to you because you’ve bought into the puritanical notion that there is something wrong with being attracted to young women; there’s really nothing confusing about it: it’s reasonable to find them physically attractive, but almost certainly inappropriate to engage in a relationship with them. This is the misconception I’m trying to dispell here.
I agree that at best he did a questionable thing. However I know nothing of her maturity at the time. As I’ve said elsewhere, I’ve met emotionally and intellectually immature 40 year olds (certainly plenty in their late 20s) and intellectually stimulating and mature 16 year olds. If it’s legal, and she was mature, why would it be wrong? And would it be wrong if I had sex with “a fully formed adult” when she is emotionally immature? I get we need a rule to catch the vast majority of the cases, but from a moral stand point I can’t say why it would be okay to have sex with an emotional immature adult, but not okay to have sex with an emotionally mature adult just because the latter is younger than the former.
Again, don’t get me wrong, the vast majority of the time there is some taking advantage going on, and there should be laws to stop it. I’m not arguing against this.
If it’s legal, and she was mature, why would it be wrong
Well a thing being legal does not make a thing right. Emotional maturity is subjective, and thus is not what we use for determining whether a person is considered an adult or not.
would it be wrong if I had sex with “a fully formed adult” when she is emotionally immature?
Maturity isn’t the guiding rod by which we can determine adulthood. I’m suggesting that age is relevant to this, because it’s the best we have at determining brain formation. Intellectual disabilities in an adult would mean that engaging with them sexually is wrong, showing that it is the functionality of the brain that determines adulthood. If there was never a need for a draft, I think we would naturally have concluded adulthood starts around 22-25, instead of the arbitrary designation of 18. For the purpose of having a hard rule to stop children from being taken advantage of, age is the best we have (for people without intellectual/developmental disabilities).
With that in mind, we really can say definitively, that no, Seinfeld isn’t wrong for finding her attractive, but he was for having a sexual relationship with her.
That being said, arguing that the urges behind the wrong act are “natural,” seems to argue for a relaxation of our attitude towards these relationships, which is also wrong. which is why other Lemmineers got the “ick” from your previous comment.
Because nobody is upset that he found her attractive. We’re upset because he was a fully formed adult, with super-stardom and all the trappings of power that come with it, engaging in a sexual relationship with a not fully formed adult.
Because nobody is upset that he found her attractive.
You should absolutely read the rest of this thread because someone outright said that I deviate from the norm by finding some of them attractive, and even tried to equate being attracted to them to having the desire to murder.
But that being said, as I already very clearly and explicitly said, I agree laws should be in place to protect minors from predators. I’m also fine with it being based on age.
It’s just that you are, on one hand, saying legality and morality are not the same (correctly, imo) but then arguing with me that it’s morally bad in many cases so we need to have a clear law (which I also agree with), which makes what he did immoral. Maybe they were emotionally and intellectually compatible. I don’t know, as I don’t know either of them, and everyone close to it has said it was a good relationship. Who am I to say it was bad?
One of the leading causes of death for teen girls aged 15-19 is complications from childbirth. Also infants born to teen mothers have increased risk of death and poorer health outcomes. One of the most common issues is obstructed labor, since their pelvises are too small to accomdate a baby.
Recent research has also found teen pregnancy is linked to premature death later in life.
The science doesn’t agree that teen girls are in their prime reproductive years. I wish this idea would fade into the history books and live alongside the idea that women shouldnt ride trains because their uteruses would fly out.
girls under the age of 15 are five times more likely to die in pregnancy than women in their 20s
I put prime years at late teens to late 20s. This seems to confirm that, not contradict it.
The second link I cant see if or where they broke it out by age…only teen vs non-teen. I would be curious to see what would change if you moved the number to 17.
Here is more information that includes the ages 16-19. Having a child before the age of 20 increases risks of death, injury, or complications. Again, not prime reproductive years. Before the modern era women had kids young, but thats because EVERYONE had shorter live spans and death was common in general. Still doesn’t add up to “teens are in their reproductbe prime.”
I have a feeling no matter how many facts or how much data I present to refute your position you aren’t going to be open to changing your mind. However, I’d like this information to be available to others who might find it insightful.
But that being said, you recognize that this was typical, which seems you should also recognize that this is what we evolved around. If women were reproducing at a young age, but were dying slightly more by their 30s, this wasn’t creating downward evolutionary pressure.
A little off base, but, Many of my relatives came from families of 6-10 children. More often than not, mothers died in childbirth. Is this where we want society to return?
Of course it matters because I certainly don’t believe we should go back to that at all and I have no idea how you could had possibly gotten yourself there.
The best time to have a baby with the lowest risk is ages 20 - 26. That’s the window with the best outcome. I love science, it’s the best way to move towards better ideas and medical practices. That’s why I care about dispelling the idea that teenagers are in their reproductive prime.
Also, this might be interesting to you. Women didn’t marry young as frequently as we’re told.
So not being open to changing your mind was a projection. I figured as much, its almost always people thinking they see themselves in other people when they make baseless accusations.
You ignored data twice, and then I agreed that past 30 is a higher risk pregnancy. No idea what you are talking about friend.
I then provided info that shows women werent always marrying as young as people tend think which goes against your basis that evolution supports teens being in their reproductive prime. You haven’t supplied any data at all to back up your claims.
But you do you. The info is out there for you and others. Have a nice day now
I addressed all of the data you provided, even asking for further clarification for one of the sources. You just hand-waved my point, with data, away. Even now trying to claim that I didn’t provide it. And you’re accusing me of ignoring data. Lol Just another projection. You’re good at doing this.
Dude you can’t reason with these people. They are repressed sickos that want to make their viewpoint seem normal. It’s like some vegans who pretend that meat isn’t delicious. It’s all the same authoritarian shit. Eroticism makes them uncomfortable so they want to outlaw it. The ironic part is that if these neopuritans ever have kids their kids will grow up kinky AF.
One of the hottest times I had before I was 21 was a woman in her early 50s seducing me. I imagine there neopuritans would attempt to explain away my agency or frame me as a victim and shit. It’s tragic when you consider where these neopuritans are headed.
We are talking about a young woman in her prime reproductive years. Objectively speaking, evolutionarily, it would make sense that men are attracted to this. In fact, I would argue that if you don’t find them physically attractive, you are the one deviating from the norm.
We’re talking about sexual attraction to children that don’t know how to file their taxes
Motherfucker are you in the IRS or why the hell do you think a boner is somehow related to following processes? “Oh god, yeah baby file that W2, I’m so hard right now” gtfo outta here with your weird ass fetish, what a fucking shit show.
To me, it’s a distraction. I think it’s legal in just about every state for someone to marry a child under the age of 15 with the approval of their parents.
I can guarantee you that all those puritan ass hats have the same feelings as everyone else but will “ooohhh no no no no, not me, I would never think THAT!” when asked.
Of course we should protect minors, that’s why we have these laws in the first place. However, 18 is an arbitrary age and I’ve seen girls at 15 being more grownup and responsible for their own actions than certain 25 year olds who clearly still needed protection. Just saying that a relationship is abuse because the girl is 18 and the guy is 30 is honestly stupid.
In the end, it’s a consensual relationship, it’s legal, and it may fail or not, like any relationship.
On a relevant side note: I’ve seen many relationships that are actually abusive, instead of “the girl being young”. Hell, I’ve been in one where the woman would beat the crap out of me. I’m a 2 meter (6 feet) big guy with black belt on karate, so I MUST be the bad one here, no?
That day that I got pushed down the stairs, mangled my leg, limped outside, called the police, waited for them to arrive, she came out with a bloody lip out of nowhere. Police were smart and kind enough to explain to me that they understood what happened but that next time they would HAVE to arrest be, because girl is girl and I is big bad man.
Yeah you didn’t read. My point was not “hey let’s date 15 year olds”, my point was that there are enough 25 year olds out there that are less mature and responsible than certain 15 year olds.
I’ve seen girls at 15 being more grownup and responsible for their own actions than certain 25 year olds
Because they already have sexual trauma. That is never a good sign - as in, that is a sign that people who work with youth are taught to look for.
The ability of a teenage girl to put on makeup and look “mature” does not indicate that they are emotionally developed enough to be independent or in a relationship with an adult man.
I don’t really have an issue with a 16 year old dating an 18 year old. They’re close enough that the age thing wouldn’t be an issue, but 17 and 38 is a bit different.
I also don’t really have an issue with adults being attracted to… people below the legal limit so long as they don’t act on it. It’s very difficult to have this discussion when most people can’t grasp that desires don’t always lead to actions and have problems separating fiction from reality. There are people with rape fetishes that find healthy, consensual ways to simulate the act, something that the mainstream can’t really cope with.
But that’s not really the discussion we’re having. Jerry Seinfeld had a teenaged girlfriend when he was 38. Celebrities using their positions of power isn’t acceptable.
Romeo and Juliet laws show we absolutely have some tolerance for adults dating teenagers. And nobody I know is saying a 17 year old can’t be sexually attractive. The problem is they essentially unarmed against the average 30 year old. And I’d much rather draw a line somewhere than the actual puritanical practice of marrying teenagers to a 40 year old man who happens to have the most money available.
Imagine responding to an actual thought out, reasoned argument with some braindead thought terminating snark. Saves the effort of trying to actually engage in conversation or uncomfortable thoughts I guess but that’s about it.
Posting publicly on the internet means people can respond to you.
Responding to a relatively well-formed statement and rationalized statement with a 1 sentence meme-response is lazy and braindead and contributes nothing but go off if it makes you feel like you’re doing something I guess. Certainly easier than actually engaging with a topic.
They really do. My own father married a 17 year old when he was 26 (years before he met my mom), and I spent a long time trying to justify it to myself with the fact that a lot of people did that kind of thing in the 70s. It wasn’t until I was an adult that I was finally able to process my feelings about him as a human separate from my feelings about him as a father and just admit that was disgusting. He actually said her parents should’ve had him thrown in jail, but she was already a huge asshole (and still is) and they probably saw an opportunity to pawn her off on someone else. I’m not surprised she was a nightmare with everyone around her totally failing her, though.
But while he was alive, Lee stressed his belief that the country should move past the war. He swore allegiance to the Union and publicly decried southern separatism, whether militant or symbolic. “It’s often forgotten that Lee himself, after the Civil War, opposed monuments, specifically Confederate war monuments.”
As a fellow BtB fan, that was my first thought as well. No one should give a damn what Lee said regardless of what side he appears to be taking. He was a terrible person, a terrible general, and only ever seemed to do what he felt would benefit him the most personally.
It’s the same reason I get annoyed seeing media portray Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, John Bolton, and Anthony Scaramucci, etc as a source of valid, balanced, and impartial viewpoints. We all saw what you guys did when you had control, but some of us don’t forget as quickly as others. You’re only concerned for your reputation and legacy and to preserve another chance to do what you did all over again.
Very true, but his time in an official position was limited to a matter of days. I was just trying to think of the names that jumped out at me as still being regularly in the spotlight for no good reason. His platform should have ended as quickly as it began, but media is still giving him a voice over better options, and he’s still a symptom of a greater issue in how people get news.
I remember many years ago, the AF was charging airmen when some were splitting their tongues. The least they could do is charge these local PD with felonies. Obviously isn't going to happen.
What is crazy is the woman he was video chatting with said he heard a knock, asked who was there. No answer. Then a louder knock a couple of minutes later which is when he got his gun and they burst in. It sounds like it was unannounced.
I hope we get the video for this but Florida is trying to kill all of its open information policies, so we may never get to see it.
I really hope the cops are charged and convicted on at least manslaughter. Florida is pro-gun but also pro-cop. If the video shows them as being unannounced, I could see people actually being concerned because it could happen to any gunowner at that point, racial bias aside.
(IANAL) So, technically speaking, signing up for the military means the government literally owns you. Self harm and body modification (even as mild as forgetting sunblock and getting sunburned, unapproved cosmetic surgeries) can be punished, on the grounds of damaging government/military property, making a soldier non-combat-ready.
Now I have even more questions. How many people did this before it became a problem? How did this get started and why did people participate in it? Was this an issue in other branches? Is it a case of “we have to wear uniforms so we’re going to do something rebellious to stand out?”
It doesn’t have anything to do with the military. It’s a body mod along the same line as tattoos, piercings, suspension, scarification, subdermal implants, and so on. It likely happens that some military personnel had it done but that’s very much not where it came from.
Yeah, I get that it’s a popular body mod. I had a friend in that community and I learned a lot about it and it seems cool. I’m just confused because the body modders I met weren’t exactly the sort of folks I’d see joining the military, especially the Air Force.
It was a small group of people circa 2003. They added to the Dress and Appearance AFI as 'mutilation' and specifically called it tongue splitting.
All kinds of people go into the military for various reasons. Many to get out of some way of life back home regardless of how they feel about the military and US policies you know? They can get college paid for, cut ties with whatever or whoever, get a place to live, get meals taken care of, get money in their pocket and maybe learn a trade. Obviously, there's a lot of cons there too but some people see it as their best way 'out' of something.
Back then OIF/OEF was just kicking off and everyone was all 'Never Forget' so the AF had so many people they actually started taking volunteers for people to leave early and then started forcing people out (called Force Reduction), which is crazy with the shear amount of deployments going on but the AF also had too many NCOs as well. So yeah. Shit show as usual.
What the fuck are these people so scared of that they start blasting folk for pulling into their driveway? This seems to keep happening and nobody ever thinks to check up on the mf who almost blasted a delivery driver who got the wrong address? Forget just charging the dude with attempted murder, can we search the house and take away firearms from somebody so clearly irresponsible that they can’t distinguish a genuine threat from an imagined one?
If the second amendment won’t allow that to happen, then the amendment needs to be re-written.
The second amendment absolutely would allow that to happen. To people purposefully misrepresenting what it says won’t.
First, it says what it says because we need a militia to protect the nation, which was once true when an professional standing army wasn’t expected but no longer is.
Second, the goal is for a well regulated militia. Even if we assume it still applies (it doesn’t, but let’s pretend), nothing about this is well regulated. Make sure people have training if you’re going to let people own firearms so freely.
It wasn’t that a professional standing army “wasn’t expected” - in fact they were quite common at the time. Standing armies don’t tend to go unused, they make it easy for asshole politicians to pick stupid fights with other countries. Not having one was a deliberate choice we made to avoid such things, and for the most part it worked, for a little while at least.
I wouldn’t say the were quite common. They weren’t unheard of, but only the major powers in the world could afford them. The US would be a nation of mostly farmers isolated from most of the developed world. There’s no reason they would have expected to become a world power. A militia, at the time, would seem to be the reasonable expectation for such a nation for the foreseeable future.
As a responsible gun owner: they can and should take his guns away. There’s multiple felonies he can be charged with and he’ll almost certainly be convicted of at least one.
The article doesn’t make it 100% clear, but it sounds like this guy was just going to die of untreated cancer due to our for-profit healthcare system if he hadn’t won the Powerball.
So I guess all of you cancer victims without good insurance know what to do.
Oregon does not check immigration status to apply for the state’s free insurance that covers anyone making less than 250% the federal definition of poverty. That means even undocumented immigrants get full access to Medicaid.
You can even get a driver’s license and send kids to school without including immigration status in Oregon (yay sanctuary states!). If he doesn’t want a license, trips to medical facilities are provided free. Getting that time off work is a different story…
He said in his speech he has been “battling cancer” and is getting chemotherapy treatment.
Often not, if you can get treatment. Which he can now afford through sheer luck alone, unlike many other cancer victims in America who could have beaten their cancer if they could have afforded to.
It should be noted that this is just a method to determine the amount of infected cows. The milk itself isn't a threat to anyone. Virus fragments in themselves can't do anything, they're just a sign of the original cow problem.
Call out anyone that tries to fearmonger about the milk being dangerous.
From what I’ve read it doesn’t seem to be a particularly severe disease for cows anyway. The hubbub is mostly about the potential for farm and dairy workers to catch it directly from a cow, which still seems like an incredibly rare occurrence
The bigger concern, that not many people are taking about, is wildlife. This bird flu is spreading out in the wild and has been taking out all sorts of endangered birds and mammals in mass quantities.
And if something jumps into humans, it’s more likely to happen from the massive spread happening in local wildlife.
There’s still people using livestock dewormer as a cure all when they can’t get their doc to write a script… so not drinking raw milk is just a libtard “suggestion” to them or the person saying it is just “in the pocket of big dairy” …
weee!!! oh what a fun & exciting dystopia we’re in!! /s
In case anyone wasn’t aware, the ‘trouble’ many of these ‘troubled adolescents’ get themselves into is having a boyfriend or girlfriend that’s the same gender they are. Or, worse, saying their gender is not the one assigned to them at birth!
Founded in 2008, Trails Carolina is a for-profit wilderness camp that treats children with diagnoses such as autism, ADHD, bipolar and post-traumatic stress disorders, as well as those struggling with depression or unruly behavior.
Camps where they futility try to discipline those disorders out of the kids. I checked on one for my son one time and after reading through the lines and lines of bullshit they threw at me decided it was a bad idea. That camp got shut down in 2012 after losing a lawsuit with one of their victims.
or tried to run away and got caught (and/or were found out before they even had a chance)
Or their parents don’t like their friend group (not uncommon amongst the more hardline religious families)
There’s probably plenty more I’ve forgotten since leaving reddit. The whole system is fucked and the “camps” shouldn’t be legal.
The OTHER fun one is what I recall being referred to as “gooning”, where the parents arrange for the kid to be picked up in the middle of the night, put in a vehicle, and driven to the camp. SOMEHOW that is legal and not human trafficking.
I’m aware of that definition. But it was also a term used on reddit by r/troubledteens for this specific circumstance. Going off the phrase “hired goons”
Often it’s those, and they’re heartbreaking. Sometimes it’s “just” het-cis relationships the parents don’t like. Sometimes it’s “Drinking While Evangelical” or other garden variety youthful rebellion. Sometimes it’s depression. Sometimes it’s just literally wicked stepparents. The overriding connection is always that they don’t need to be there and even if they have issues (and to be clear being LGBTQ+ is not a behavioral problem), the so-called solution will be much worse than the problem.
At your recommendation (with your post being 9 hours old - the thing is really long) I read the whole thing start to finish, and just finished. It’s been a hard (emotionally) read and I’ve had a headache since I started it, but it was worth it, and I’m glad the dude is doing at least passably well in life, all things considered.
And at the end when he mentions he was sent in 98 at just past 16… I was sent to a military boarding school at almost 14 in 00, essentially for having adhd, mild autism, and a single parent who swung between negligence and authoritarianism, and I’m just really lucky my mom found one of the less bad places. A legitimate school that was only a bit abusive (but really not a super appropriate environment for most children either way). Because I could have met that person in hell if things had played out a bit differently. And that’s a really sobering thought. I’m glad I didn’t have it until the end.
First, here’s a small story: I had to read Elie Wiesel’s Night in high school. I got a lot out of reading it over two weeks or so in AP English. I gave my copy to Mom, who’s a big reader, and warned her to take her time as it’s painful to read. The next morning she tells me “I read the whole thing last night, then I couldn’t sleep, and now I can’t stop crying.” Mom, I warned you 😓
Even with my very sheltered life, or perhaps because of it, I have found I need to space these kinds of stories out so that I don’t get overwhelmed. I think elan.school it took me 3 weeks to get caught up and then he finished the series over just a few weeks.
I’m sorry you went through so much as a kid, yourself. You and Joe are both around the same age as me, too. I hope reading elan.school helps you in some way with your own journey. I’m glad you found it worth the investment of your time.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.