Parents who buy their children guns at all need to all be evaluated. There is seriously something wrong with giving children something whos intended purpose is delivering lethal force.
I don’t find it weird for hunting, but giving a child unrestricted access to firearms is insane to me given children are not able to assess risk the same way adults do.
Oh, I don’t mean temporary custody under controlled and hopefully educated circumstances, but those who hand it over completely. A kid simply does not need that power nor have the responsibility for full time custody.
Hell, the government wants people 18+ before they’ll hand someone a gun and let them go die for something…
if you can’t make the decision to drink, buy a gun, or whatever else because you’re supposedly not “mature” enough to do, why the fuck should you be trusted with choosing who makes those laws? while you’re at it, raise the age to enroll in the military. if you can go die for your country at 18 you should be able to buy a beer, vote, and buy the gun they’ll hand you at boot.
conversely if you want to lower the voting age, as some democrats suggest, then so should the drinking age, gun purchasing age etc.
there’s simply no logic in being ‘mature’ enough for one and not the other.
It’s not about principle of freedom or maturity. The legal age of drinking is where it is because of young adults drinking and driving. You can have layers of maturity that isn’t give/take all responsibilities. An 18 year old should be allowed to vote because they’re just as responsible as any adult to provide themselves their own food and shelter. Unless you think it should be illegal to kick someone out until they’re 21.
Yea that’s kinda’ EXACTLY the point… they CAN make it that way, but haven’t. The entire point is that modern Republicans are far more despicable than most any kind of politician from history. Yes, that includes slavers.
It takes an entire additional level of evil to step BACK IN TO social problems, and that’s 100% of the modern GOP platform: bring back problems that were already solved.
“Hey son, here’s a firearm, let’s go kill something, systematically eviscerate and skin it, and then consume its flesh while taking joy and pride in each step of the process. Oh, don’t ever do this to humans or dogs.” I dunno, seems pretty weird to me.
Not my point. The comment I replied to was highlighting that killing and preparing your own food is perverse, as compared to normal food shopping practices. They made no claim of veganism, so I didn’t go there.
Veganism is great for a lot of folks, but before that, I think meat eaters should be fully aware, accepting and ready to see how meat is prepared. And they should be ready to do it themselves if they are willing to eat meat.
I’m guessing that user would probably find CAFO/factory farm supplied nuggets just as “weird”/bad. If not worse. Certainly more cruelty there vs hunting.
"Let's take these plant babies and grind them into a pulp, drown it, let it be eaten by a bunch of tiny monsters until they fart enough gas, and then burn it" also sounds kinda weird. Welcome to the universe; shit's a little whack.
So? It’s patently obvious that millions of people go hunting every year without turning into mass murderers. Pointing out logical fallacies isn’t an argument.
It’s patently obvious that millions of people go hunting every year without turning into mass murderers.
I never said they do.
Pointing out logical fallacies isn’t an argument.
I wasn’t staking any claims in this argument. Just pointing out how yours is invalid.
I did so because it’s constructive criticism to promote better reasoning. But of course you’re too immature to receive constructive criticism, so you defensively deflect it instead.
Edit: oh wait you’re not even the user I was speaking to…
I think it was an appeal to natural order, not tradition.
One time after GPS became pretty well available a court somewhere was called upon to decide whether, now that we have this cheaply available magical system of maritime navigation, is it negligent to crash into the rocks and destroy the vessel because you were still using a sextant and navigating by the stars? I mean, that’s the way we’ve always done it. That’s an appeal to tradition.
I disagree. It was clearly an appeal to tradition, given his specific reference to human history (traditional human hunting behavior). But the appeal to nature is also a logical fallacy anyway.
I’m not even condemning hunting, btw. It’s necessary in some cases for healthy animal populations.
This is far past the point of mattering, but the actual thing I was targeting was the statement "seems pretty weird" by stating that in the context of human history, hunting is objectively not weird, that is to say, unusual or abnormal, at all.
And I mean, if we're trying to entertain logical rigor, I don't think the original "appeal to vibes" is exactly a good start.
I’m pretty sure they didn’t use firearms millenia[sic] ago. They had dysentery, though, maybe try that instead. That’s more authentic if you really want to connect.
You’re right. Probably won’t try dysentery. There is something intimate and connective in how we choose to procure and prepare food, and in being alone and quiet in remote wilderness, relying on our senses and wit, strength, respect for nature and its fruits. I don’t want to do exactly as the indigenous people did, or even as the colonists did. Going hunting once or twice a year is enough for me. Part of a tradition.
None of what you said is clever or addressed that killing animals, ripping off their skin, tearing out their viscera, and eating their flesh is creepy, especially given the amount of planning, tools, etc, that is requires. Don’t conflate that with foraging watercress. It’s a bad, lazy argument.
You kill for pleasure. I don’t care if it’s tradition, religion, or whatever other excuse you tell yourself, you kill for pleasure. And that’s creepy. And I’m not interested in continuing his or any further conversation with you.
I don’t think hunting animals is creepy at all and i have never fired a weapon in my life. I eat animal meats every day, is that somehow less creepy? Because someone else did all those ‘creepy’ steps?
Oh boy, wait until you hear about this type of animal called omnivores. They can survive off vegtable but they still hunt and eat meat because obviously they’re evil strange and un-natural.
You’re calling something that happens in nature all the time un natural then asking that I don’t bring up nature. Okay buddy, want me to not bring up everything that makes tour argument ridiculous too? Or just the ones you don’t have a canned response for?
That is when your brain stops really growing and developing, it’s not some threshold of social or intellectual maturity.
If anything, people become less adaptable, less open-minded, and less cooperative after that. It’s not something we get to lord over young people, it’s a mark against us olds for being less capable of growth.
Your frontal lobe contains brain areas that manage who you are — especially your personality — and how you behave. Your ability to think, solve problems and build social relationships, sense of ethics and right vs. wrong all rely on parts of your frontal lobe.
Experts know this because of a railroad foreman named Phineas Gage. In 1848, an accidental explosion at a railroad construction site propelled an iron rod through Gage’s head, destroying the left side of his frontal lobe. Before the accident, Gage was a calm, respected leader among his coworkers. Gage survived, but after the accident, his personality changed. He would lose his temper, act disrespectfully and constantly use profanity.
However, Gage’s personality changes weren’t permanent. Four years after his accident, Gage moved to Chile in South America and became a stagecoach driver. Somewhere in late 1858 or early 1859, a doctor who examined Gage said he was physically healthy and showed “no impairment whatever of his mental faculties.”
While Gage mostly recovered from the accident, he died from seizures in San Francisco in 1860. The seizures were very likely the result of damage from the accident. However, his case remains one of the most useful in modern medicine’s understanding of what the frontal lobe does, especially when it comes to your personality.
The Pre-Frontal Cortex
One of the biggest differences researchers have found between adults and adolescents is the pre-frontal cortex. This part of the brain is still developing in teens and doesn’t complete its growth until approximately early to mid 20’s. The prefrontal cortex performs reasoning, planning, judgment, and impulse control, necessities for being an adult. Without the fully development prefrontal cortex, a teen might make poor decisions and lack the inability to discern whether a situation is safe. Teens tend to experiment with risky behavior and don’t fully recognize the consequences of their choices.
Before he passed away, my kids’ grandfather bought all his grandkids their first 22 rifle. Some of the cousins were still infants but he wanted to buy them something. He was a prolific hunter and marksman. My kids guns all lived in the safe until they were old enough to shoot them, and now they live in the safe when not in use. You can give guns to kids all day long, that’s not the problem and the gun is not the problem.
You can give guns to kids all day long, that’s not the problem and the gun is not the problem.
The problem is not appropriately assessing whether the child in question she be allowed the gun. Are they responsible, are they going to use it for valid purposes. This holds true for, well, everyone always. A lack of reasonable regulation is the actual problem. I am glad you have responsibly managed the distribution and use of firearms for your children. We should do that for everyone.
Fuck that, no way in hell people would allow authorities to inspect their private property inside their homes as a prerequisite to exercising a constitutional right.
The “Constitutional” right to have weapons on you 24/7 and use them the second you are afeared is brand new. The actual text has a whole other half making clear that it’s for a well regulated militia. I had my room and weapon inspected in the military. So can you if you want that gun. If you have a problem with order and discipline then you don’t get a gun.
Your idea of gun rights are one SCOTUS decision away from going back to the way they were in the late 1700’s. Kept at home and regularly inspected by the local militia. They’ve even set the historical standard as precedent. Now it’s just a game of judges willing to actually use that standard instead of making shit up to create a new right from whole cloth.
It could go the other way though, most people don’t know the court isn’t capped at a certain number. But everyone knows you can repeal an amendment. And the rubber band effect is coming. How many kids will it take before people demand the entire amendment be scrapped? I don’t know, but the idea grows every year. With every high profile shooting. You can compromise now or have all guns banned down the road. That’s the outlook.
A well regulated militia made up of people who were supposed to bring their own guns and ammunition that they were proficient in using. The Militia Acts make this pretty clear, along with the Federalist Papers. The intent was that an armed population could be called on by the States to resist an invading army, be that army foreign or the standing Federal army. It also was an evolution of English law enshrining rights to self defense.
If we change the sentence slightly and say “The free flow of goods and services being essential to the safety and functionality of the economy, the right is the people to keep money and travel freely shall not be infringed”, would not imply that you are only free to leave your house and have cash if you are engaged in business.
People in good standing, registered with their town/county/state militia, and subject to the regulations thereof.
The idea that every farmer was a minutemen and that was our defense plan is a Hollywood level simplification of history. The Federalist and Anti Federalist papers make this very clear. Furthermore the founding fathers wanted a standing Army eventually. They knew a militia would not work forever. The idea was always for a standing Army to take over in the future, with the State militias to balance out any shenanigans by the federal army.
And again the state militias were not every Tom, Dick, and Harry. They were regulated affairs much closer to a national guard unit than a shooting club.
Every Tom, Dick, and Harry was part of the militia, and still are today. Title 10 outlines that all able bodies men not enlisted in the military or national guard is part of the unorganized militia. The founders feared a standing army, while knowing it was inevitable and useful, and the militia was one of the balances of power between State and Federal power.
Hamilton layed out clearly that intention in Federalist 29. “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.” … “Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”…“if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”
The intent of the 2nd amendment was to preserve the existence of an armed populace that would protect themselves and their neighbors from any threats.
Right and when’s the last time you reported for drill?
It was 2013 for me.
You looked right past the part where he talks about an actual militia, not just every citizen. Maybe critically read that instead of just using bits to confirm your bias.
Yeah, I made sure to capture the entire sentence so I wouldn’t be cherry picking/quote mining to skew it to my “side” of the debate. In 1776, planning a yearly exercise/drill for a town or city was something that would happen when everyone got together for traveling judges, organizing fire brigades, and all kinds of civic tasks.
If you want to start planning a yearly get together for people to have a training day with the national guard or reserves like CERT does for disaster drills, it would probably be a huge hit with the tacticool dads and gravy seals. Would probably get better turnout than the CERT drills that serve critical importance to first responders and make the civilians better at how to respond to disasters too.
You are glossing over that the Federal Government to this day considers every (male) citizen to be the militia. Your saying the equivalent of “Nader’s talking about specifically the Pinto, not cars in general when he says our roads are unsafe.” I’ll even conceed that your right that Title 10 does need to be adjusted to include women, because they already serve in the military and are fully capable to fighting in wars. You are also glossing over Hamilton saying that requiring everyone to be a well-regulated militia was unreasonable, so they would just need to rely on “the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens” being armed and equipped. That right there is the definition of “every Tom, Dick, and Harry”. He wanted to make sure that they didn’t neglect to be armed and equipped by checking every year or so. I would like to direct the request for critically reading Federalist 29 instead of just using bits to confirm your bias" right back your way.
If “expecting them to be trained as a military is unreasonable, but we can still rely on them to bring their guns and fight with the professionals with just a little training once a year” doesn’t rely on the right of all classes of citizens having a right to be armed, I don’t know what else it means. The Militia Acts say the same thing; every able bodied citizen is considered part of the militia, and as such can be conscripted at any time of need. When conscripted, the “every able bodied citizen” needed to show up with a gun, initial ammunition, bayonet, and field equipment.
We have the same system now, except it’s called Selective Service instead of reporting to your town hall when you move, except you do that too by establishing residency for local voting and tax purposes.
As SCOTUS has so ably noticed, the 1900’s aren’t early enough to tell us the intentions behind an agreement from the late 1700’s. So a law passed in 1916 to help with drafting soldiers has shit all to do with the 2nd amendment. Especially since it’s so easily revocable.
And training did not take place once a year. It took place at least once a month, more often in some places. Finally, trying to use a term of art like “the great yeomanry” as evidence it was every man is just gilding the lilly. He even uses the exact phrase “A well regulated Militia” in opposition to your great yeomanry. Which would seem to suggest that only those who practiced often enough had a right to bear arms as the founders understood their contemporary language.
Jumping on subjective terms and ignoring what’s actually said might work in your gun forum circle jerks but it doesn’t pass muster in the light of day.
That passage on the makeup of the militia is from the 1792 Militia Acts, and is fully contemporaneous with the 2nd amendment being a mere 16 years after the Declaration and 9 years after the end of the war. There is clear continuity from before the founding to today that the militia is the citizenry.
Let’s throw out the “flowery language” since you dislike it, it doesn’t change anything. In plain English he wrote that the discussion was about and included all classes of citizens. I don’t know if you are speed skimming or just that biased in your comprehension of the work. His use of “a well regulated militia” was to say that it was an unreasonable expectation and counter productive, and the only expectation was that the people be armed. He is literally saying “give up on the whole well regulated militia for everyone thing and be happy that at least everyone, the people at large, will be armed”.
I don’t know if you are trolling at this point, just not reading the paper, or so biased that you actually think that “the experiment [the project of disciplining the entire militia of the United States], if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” is actually advocating in favor of only arming the disciplined [well regulated] militia.
The chain of laws would be the two Militia Acts of 1792, then the Militia Act of 1795 which made 1792’s Presidental powers permanent, then the Militia Act of 1862 where they expanded every able bodied white male citizen to include black males, then the Militia Act of 1903 which made the organized militia officially into the National Guard and the unorganized militia of all other male citizens (and those who have stated formal intention to become a citizen this time) into the unorganized Reserve Militia, and then finally the National Defense Act of 1916 providing funding to the National Guard and creating the ability to draft the Guard for overseas service.
If this heartwarming story of responsible gun ownership is actually true, Mr/Ms Anonymous Voice On The Internet — y’know, because I believe every anecdote I read on social media — you are probably one of <1000 people in 336,000,099 (the 2024 population of the United States).
This, friends, is a great demonstration of why math and science courses are so important. Science teaches critical thinking skills. A lack of critical thinking skills often leads people to make things up to explain phenomena instead of questioning their assumptions and seeking factual information.
Mathematics, especially statistics, provides a framework by which people can critically evaluate the validity and significance of numerical values as well as generate realistic, informed estimates. A lack of basic math skills causes many people to be unable to evaluate relative proportions and effect sizes of event drivers.
Hunting is a cultural thing for many, and you often start with a smaller caliber while you’re young and learning. I guess I would compare it to a parent buying their kid their first baseball/softball glove. Parents often pass down a love for sport, most just don’t involve killing stuff.
Well I grew up with a dad that hunted and took me hunting, I was even an Eagle Scout, but I didn’t actually own a gun until later in my 20s. There’s just no good reason for kids to have their own guns and it needs to stop.
Also, gotta be honest, now that I’m older I think hunting is kinda fucked up in itself. I’m not gonna try to fight that battle tho lol
I know you’re not referring to hunting rifles, but it is very common to give those as gifts to teenagers when they are old enough to get a hunting license. In some places that’s 12 years old.
My parents also made me take a course on gun safety tho…
And they wouldn’t let me use it unless it was with them…
So this lady definitely still deserves her sentence. Also, no kid needs and AR or a pistol.
Just say that the lessons will be given by the NRA at a price and they'd probably lose most of their institutional backing pretty quickly. Money talks to republicans.
The NRA is already the largest gun safety education organization in the USA. Their hunter’s safety education programs are basically ubiquitous across the USA wherever people go to get their first hunting license.
Gun safety should be a mandatory class in education. Probably a multi-stage class starting with an age appropriate class in Elementary school, a more advanced class in Middle school to demystify and take some of the taboo cool factor out, and again in High school. Range time should be incorporated in High school, and maybe Middle school. We all know abstinence only education doesn’t work.
Whyyy? Hunting is a dangerous sport that is 100% not required that utilizes lethal weaponry. If a parent wants to take their kids hunting, they should be 100% responsible for them including having the license and owning the firearms. 16 seems like the bare minimum to allow children to engage with weaponry, but probably older to own.
There's a huge difference between giving a child unrestricted access to a firearm, and taking them sport shooting in a controlled environment. I've helped with beginner shooting courses for kids in scouts. There is an adult with each kid, one round loaded at a time, etc. You can similarly control the environment hunting by using blinds, etc, where you oversee the use of the firearm, loading of round etc.
I'm not big into shooting, but from a safety perspective there are ways to hunt and sport shoot with kids in a very controlled way.
Keep in mind, a person earlier in this convo said some kids get one gifted when they get a hunting license, which can be as early as 12, so you’re basically attempting to change the entire claim being made… Clearly, in many situations, kids ARE ending up with a firearm under their sole ownership.
Having a .22 under the Christmas tree and having unsupervised access to it are two very different things. I know plenty of people who got rifles for their younger children but keep them in a safe with their own guns until the kids are older.
Yes, and are those parents on trial for manslaughter? You guys are completely forgetting the context in which this is being asked. If they’re retaining control until the kid is older… they’re likely being responsible and would be found totally fine under any serious proposal.
The parents are on trial for manslaughter because they gave their kid a gun like you might give your kid an action figure, with zero restrictions or teaching about respect for life whatsoever. There is a right way to handle kid's access to guns and many wrong ways.
Yes, and you fucking morons keep saying that as if ANYONE is saying we’d want to take THOSE guns. You fucking idiots are using the context to get offended instead of using it to understand what is being asked for.
Stop being offended over something not even being asked for here. It’s pathetic.
Yes, because ypu morons keep acting as if I said, “yea, we should clearly restrict all guns from all children at all times.”
Learn to fucking read before you all go on and on about responsible gun ownership. WE KNOW!! We’re not talking about responsible gun owners. The entire topic has never been about responsible gun owners having any rights removed. “evaluated” does not mean, “take guns”, ffs.
Yes, IMO these parents do need to be, as you put it, evaluated, so that we can tell apart the responsible tutors from the irresponsible asshats like the woman who got charged.
We have evaluation systems for firearms literally everywhere else in the world. Fuck, in the US, you have evaluation systems for cars but not fucking guns.
Indeed, and that’s exactly what they’d be evaluated on. Responsible gun ownership should be the only kind of ownership protected under the 2a. Responsible gun ownership should not include sole ownership by those that cannot even join the military.
Maaaybe under odd edge cases where a kid gets to be their own guardian, but eh.
Being gifted a gun is not being given unrestricted access to that weapon. I was gifted a shotgun at 15 and I never saw it unless my dad was present. It stayed in his safe until we went shooting together. When I moved out and showed him my own safe was ready, I got it from him and that was that.
What I’m saying is you’re complaining about something no one is asking for. No one has even mentioned doing anything negative towards people who responsibly teach their kids about guns.
My dad is a gun collector, so I was around them my entire life, but gun safety was also part of my entire life. We understood what they were and what they could do. So if my friends ever said “can we see your dad’s guns?” It was always “no.”
That’s good, and I can relate to your experience growing up respecting firearms, but children should simply not be trusted to have access.
There have been many experiments in which children find a weapon and the parents who claimed their children knew better were horrified to see them handle the staged weapon.
Children simply don’t have the logical portion of the brain developed. Even in teenagers, their amygdala (emotionality, anger, fear response) is nearly fully developed, yet their prefrontal cortext (executive control, rational thinking, emotional regulation, thinking of future consequences) is still severely underdeveloped. [1]
In fact, the prefrontal cortext isn’t fully developed until our mid 20s, and possibly a few years longer for those of us with ADHD. [2] This is why teenagers display heightened risk-taking, are bad at controlling their emotions, restraining themselves, and thinking about the consequences of their actions.
Under supervision is one thing, but unsupervised access to a firearm is a patently bad idea. With that said, I did have access to a firearm (.22) and I acted responsibly as a minor (only used it for target practice). But I absolutely should not have had access to it.
For families who participate in hunting and shooting sports, I can see giving the child their own gun, make it their responsibility to clean and maintain it, choose what optics or other accessories they put on it, etc.
I don’t support letting them have unrestricted access to it as a minor though. It should be locked up whenever it’s not in use under adult supervision.
I have a casual interest in guns, don’t currently own any but may someday when my budget allows (it’s pretty low on my priority list.) I do have a lot of friends who own guns though, many of them have had their “own” gun since childhood. All of their parents though were very strict about gun safety, none of them had free access to any guns or ammo until they were adults, and sometimes not even really until they moved out and took their guns with them because even as adults living at home with their parents some of them didn’t have the key/combo to the gun safe, so in a sense they still kind of had to ask for their parents’ permission if they wanted to take their guns out to go hunting or shooting into their 20s.
In an outdoor on-the-spot interview someone asked him how XAEwhatever was (saying it how Musk pronounced it in an interview) and Musk was confused for a few seconds like “huh… what…?.. OH YOU MEAN MY KID HAHA! Yeah he’s fine.”
So he was just trolling and getting his kicks while everyone took him serious.
It’s to stop crackheads from naming their children names that will be detrimental to them throughout their life. Like naming them shitbag or sandals. No one would call their kids names like this you say? There’s a reason they had to invent this law SMH
This is a great example of the price of freedom. Poor shitbags has to live a shitty life just because a deranged parent felt like being edgy and pushing the free speech laws to their limits.
Some State Naming regulations
Arkansas: Apostrophes, hyphens, and spaces are allowed as long as they are not consecutive.
California: Derogatory or obscene names, pictographs and non-English characters are banned.
Florida: Parents need to sign an agreement to establish a child’s first name or else a court will select one.
Georgia: Symbols, including accents, are prohibited.
Illinois: No restrictions. Numbers and special characters are allowed.
Michigan: Only English characters allowed.
Mississippi: The child takes on the father’s surname automatically when parents are married. A different name can be requested if preferred.
New Jersey: Obscene names, numbers, and symbols are forbidden.
New York: First and middle names have a maximum length of 30 characters each, last names cannot exceed 40 characters. Numbers and symbols are forbidden.
North Carolina: Accent marks, hyphens, and tildes (ñ) are allowed.
Ohio: Hyphens, apostrophes, and spaces are allowed. Numbers are prohibited.
Texas: First, middle and last name cannot exceed 100 characters. Only English characters allowed. Numbers and diacritical marks are forbidden.
Virginia: Numbers, symbols and other special characters such as umlauts and tildes are banned.
examples of illegal names in the United States:
Jesus Christ.
Harry 3.
Hitler.
Nutella.
Ирина.
Nelly’s.
Chloé.
F!nn.
Aña.
@.
They threw a bitch fit when the citizens got pissed they were tear gassing random people (including children) who were walking on the sidewalk and had nothing to do with the George Floyd protests or CHOP.
They were under federal observation for over a decade because they were responsible for multiple questionable deaths.
A ton of the force quit because they didn’t want to get vaccinated during COVID.
Recently they had a Trump flag with a Nazi symbol on it in one of their breakrooms that nobody took down.
The list goes on and on. They need to dissolve the police union in Seattle entirely, and set a precedent. I’m not anti-police, but I am over their whiney bullshit and completely unethical behavior. Seriously, fuck Seattle PD.
Seattle PD is and has always been terrible. For a city with as little violent crime as we are, you would think that we would have a semi-competant police force. We aren’t Baltimore or Chicago or Memphis. We don’t need a violent, antagonistic, adversarial police force. Yet decade after decade, Seattle PD shows themselves to be the worst of the worst of violent white nationalists.
SPD’s training standards are embarrassingly low. SPD’s staffing numbers are embarrassing low. Rookie cops make over $100k and the right-wing pundits say it’s not enough, while first-year teachers make $55k and the right-wing pundits say it’s too much. They blame the BLM riots and say that the city betrayed them, but the average person here had absolutely zero faith in them well before the riots. Most SPD officers don’t actually live in Seattle.
Sorry if the second paragraph got a bit into unhinged-rant territory, but shit like this is infuriating. SPD is so clearly shit and needs to be purged.
It's partly because of how they're trained, Killology, and partly because these are people policing us from outside of Seattle.
If you live in the Seattle area, you surely know that a lot of people who don't live in the metro area really resent Seattlites. They're not really clear about why. I guess for being progressive.
Not much of the police force lives in the city proper. So we're being policed by outsiders who dislike us to begin with.
Something that will always be my first thoughts when I think of Seattle cops…
Walking down 4th ave and a guy on the corner offers to sell me drugs (I got crack, coke, and smack?) I walked across the intersection and at the next block is a cop in a car waiting for the light to turn. I point at the dealer and tell the cop that guy just offered to sell me cocaine and heroin.
His reply was that I should call 911
wowzers.
Then another memory I have is walking near Pike Place and two beat cops are walking towards me. I say hell to them and they give me dirty looks. Don’t say anything to me and look me up and down and then move on.
You keep saying SPD and I keep wondering how Space Patrol Delta sunk so low. It’s no wonder the top of the force turned evil and the B-team Power Rangers became the heroes we needed to stop them.
Marty Crane was just as much a bastard as the rest though. Regularly acted like he was above the law. Also constantly verbally and emotionally abused his kids.
You forgot about the part where they don't respond to calls. Just a couple of days ago, a man was found dead at 10:00 a.m. The sound of shots fired had been reported at 3:00 a.m., but the police decided not to respond to that call.
A friend’s son was stabbed multiple times last year and they did nothing. He knew the guy’s name, or at least an alias, and had a picture because the guy had contacted him on social media to buy something, which is why they were meeting in the first place, and SPD was like, “wow that’s a bummer, I guess we could maybe arrest the guy if one of our officers happens to trip over him during their daily rounds of doing jack shit, but we’re not gonna actually look for him.” Apparently attempted murder with a side of robbery doesn’t warrant them removing their thumbs from their asses to do the bare minimum of investigation.
I didn’t forget. This was one of the worst examples of police abuse that almost nobody knows about. That Sheriff’s Deputy had a long history of violence, and was literally being used as hired muscle by the King County Sheriff at that time. The Deputy should have been charged with attempted murder, and more importantly he shouldn’t have had a fucking job as a police officer in the first place.
I lived a block away form this when it happened. I was moments away from it and remember the yelling and didn’t know what happened until the next day. It really frightened me how it all panned out. Like yeah, NOBODY IS SAFE FROM THESE ASSHOLES
At this point an indictment of Trump in the US has reached the same level as mass shootings and our dying planet. Which indictment, mass shooting or catastrophic environmental disaster are we talking about? I’m numb and have lost track amongst the desperate hopes for change.
This is definitely some of it. Although being in DC probably also helps to tone things down. DC is a pretty blue town outside of the federal buildings.
What i find interesting is that somehow in developing countries justice was slow but eventually it arrived. I can think of places like Peru with Fujimori. Presidents got away for a while but eventually their own justice systems made them pay. I would be surprised if somehow justice didn’t prevail in this situation with Trump.
Justice has to prevail on some level if the US has any hope of protecting its democracy. This was a direct attack on the most fundamental parts of the country.
Having 3, possible 4 indictments, some of it very damning, I’m convinced shit will happen. IF nothing happens out of 3 (4*) indictments, then I’d lose pretty much all hope at that point. I am at a point now where I have no yet lost all hope.
At this point I’ll take a slap on the wrist for Trump if he’s barred from running for Presidency. I just want all this to end and for the country to move on.
I’ve wanted this all to end since 2016, but this steamroller keeps on going. Barring him from holding office anywhere, should be given at a minimum. These indictments are very serious. If you’re a mathematician, then you know by just the numbers, Trump is fucked and he knows it.
It’s going to take like 3-4 years between appeals for this all to play out within the courts. He NEEDS the Presidency again to even attempt to fix the courts in his favor. As it stands, right now he is royally fucked. It’s Presidency or bust.
Yeah, but they don’t care. They don’t want a competent and coherent president. They want Trump, because he hates the same people they hate, and he’s not afraid to say so.
The teams don’t play by the same rules and never have.
It’s the ones in the middle who sway one way or another. Trump is being ungracious by continuing to post about how horrible Biden has been (in his opinion). Its very un-presidential on Trump’s part, and shows the real lack of class that he is well known for. This is the kind of thing that pushes people in the middle one way or the other. It also demonstrates that he has trouble keeping his mouth shut even when he know that running his mouth is going to hurt him.
Suits - they want a king in the constitutional monarchy sense, so that he wouldn’t mess with them doing what they want.
For me all the news in the world since Artsakh war in 2020 just seem depressing and a prelude to something really bad, so I’m inadequate. And never been in the new world anyway.
Americans. This is where you highlight hypocrisy. You put it right n their face. You don’t turn around and continue the obvious truth that trump is a fool and tried to interrupt governmental process. The defo wont care about that.
You make a fool of them publicly and ensure everyone sees the hypocrisy. … and if they still weasel… they want a king.
He’s only 2 years younger than Biden and has changed somewhat since getting shot at. Even a cold bastard like him must be handling trauma after that close call.
I don’t understand, why bring up Biden? He’s not opposing Trump, instead Harris will most likely do, and she’s basicially so much younger she could be his daughter! Propping up such an ancient candidate, republicans should be ashamed! Biden at least dropped out due to his age, this Trump guy should get a clue.
At least the priorities are in the right place. Abortion rights have not been acted on for a century, climate change is hard, Ukraine can’t be helped, but the fundamental right for everyone to use their private jet anonymously has been protected.
Well that’s what the situation escalated to, yes, but what was the instigating factor. I know cops really don’t need one in practice, but usually they at least make one up.
That’s a very interesting question you’re asking. Does the guilt lie with the police for the murder, or with the person that put him in the path of the cops? If you set a dog on children, and they get horribly mauled, is it the dogs fault? Does the guilt lie with the person pulling the switch, or with the lunatic that tied them to the trolley tracks in the first place?
I understand why the op here would reframe that question, as it could quite reasonably be interpreted as shifting responsibility for their actions away from the (quite guilty) cops. It’s still a good question to ask though, especially in the current context of someone intentionally trying to dangle vulnerable people in front of the cops like a steak to a guard dog.
(Personally I think guilt lies with everyone, but that calculating the exact degree of EDIT (for clarity): I mean calculating each individual person’s guilt, as in all of society. Just to clarify that the cops are absolutely guilty. But calculating the guilt of everyone in society is impossible.)
A key point in your statement is ‘person’. Though it’s not universal, humans are understood to have better… Well, understanding of their actions. A vicious dog doesn’t understand that they’re vicious, they just rip and tear. A human is supposed to have that inner monologue to say “No.”
So, you release a dangerous animal on someone, you’re at fault. You kill someone, you’re at fault.
In George Floyd’s case, the cop is responsible. 1000%. I’ve been in situations, I’ve pointed a gun and I waited. Even when someone might be rigged to blow, you don’t just shoot them. Whomever called the cops isn’t responsible because the Cop should’ve been expected to be a human and not some deity who can do no wrong. Yes, everyone in America at this point should know that cops aren’t your friend but some people don’t know that.
(I was taking a bit of a jab at cops by implying they aren’t capable of free agency, which could have been more clear.)
I’m not sure if you understood my point. An absolutist approach isn’t representative of the real world, which is fine because representations don’t have to be perfect (by definition, I think). The question isn’t where do you draw the line, as with all trolley problem questions it’s why do you draw the line. Did the person who called the cops get him killed? Well, in an absolutist view, yes they did. They put him in the situation to get him killed. The cops are also guilty of killing him, as is the person who made the hypothetical counterfiet money.
But since we do not live in a truly accurate representation nor too a strict absolutist one, where do we draw that line? Its not a question of where in the legal code do we draw that line, or if their behavior was excusable or inexcusable, it’s a question about how we determine the answer to those questions.
When someone commits crimes it is legal, ethical, moral, and reasonable that you call the cops on them. It’s also reasonable to expect that the cops arrest them not summarily execute them. You can’t make the people responsible for the cops behavior.
You are taking this a great deal more literally than I intended for it to be taken. This is a hypothetical question that asks how we decided that it is legal, ethical moral etc. to call the cops. It’s not a question about the specifics of this case except where they serve to exemplify the concepts.
… I could have been more explicit about that, I realize.
It is legal ethical moral and reasonable to call the cops because it is the only practical way to make people stop breaking the law. If the cops don’t want to be prosecuted or hated they can stop overreacting and hurting people. If the people want to avoid the risk of excess harm they can stop committing crimes or vote for politicians who hold cops accountable. None of this is my problem.
Before the police were called, Martin and his co-workers made two trips to the SUV that Floyd was sitting in outside Cup Foods, trying to get him to come back to the store, Martin said. He recalled telling Floyd and his friends that the bill Floyd had just used was fake, and that his boss wanted to talk to him.
All I’m saying is, the consequences aren’t as simple as “some homeless lowlife goes to jail lol” like the guy in the article seems to feel in his heart. Sometimes a counterfeit bill results in a 9- minute long public execution followed months of societal pain.
ETA: Johnny McEntee! That’s the asshole’s name. Johnny McEntee is the asshole that is trying to get homeless people into situations involving police over counterfeit money. Police that sometimes decide murder is a best path to justice for poor people with counterfeit money legal issus. Fuck that guy.
This is literally why we have apex predators such as wolves. They help clamp down on the old and the sick so that prions (mad cow disease) does not spread to other species or humans. It cannot infect wolves.
When you kill off all the apex predators, like when Montana governor Greg Gianforte authorized the massacre of 100 wolves, you see explosions of extremely dangerous diseases and land degradation as deer damage tree roots, gardens, meadows, streams, and farms.
Not only that, but killing members of wolf packs causes their families to fall apart and everyone to scatter. That means wolves alone. Which cannot hunt pack animals which require coordination. So then they go after the easiest meal: dumbass farm animals who have zero survival instincts and whose ranchers no longer employ people to look after the herds in great enough numbers like the olden days. The cycle then perpetuates, as mad-cow contaminated soils spread and spread…
Could be! I’ve spent the last 3 or so years with little to do but think, read, argue and watch youtube. I tend to watch mostly educational content, ranging from the big ones (“nile red”, “veritasium”, nutshell I can’t spell, “world science festival”) to lesser known ones (“sci-show”, “fall of civilizations”, “economics explained”, “donna” and a bunch of others). Robert Sapolsky is amazing, btw, look him up if you don’t already know who he is. But anyway, most recently I learned about the last 5 mass extinctions in a video by “paleo analysis”
Anyway…
I think many people will die in the upcoming climate crisis (and are already dying) but I don’t think humanity itself will completely die out. I mean, we are not the pinnacle of evolution that some people would like to think, and we’re still changing and likely will continue to do so as our environment changes. But die out completely? Prrrrrobably not. As a species we’re highly adaptive (even though some idiots in power hold us back) and I think that at least enough of us will survive to continue the species.
Maybe not, but I think we have a shot that’s no more unlikely than anything else that’s happened so far
I think you’re right. Having assets spread across different investments protects one from going bankrupt. Having our species spread across the different climates means that we may still survive but probably not most of us.
I totally get what you mean. I’m hopeful, tho. Pressures force growth and adaptation. I think we’re still in the complacent zone. I’m interested to see what happens next
I wouldn’t call economics explained or sci-show “lesser-known”, they’re some of the most popular “educational” youtubers out there now… (although a lot of the times i would find it more accurate to call economics explained videos opinion pieces based on faulty claims/sources rather than educational videos)
Which would you recommend? I don’t mind dry, but I have issues with accents. I like Anton Petrov’s videos but I find it difficult to understand him (as an example)
Can’t infect wolves? I’m no expert here but I don’t feel like a vertebrate mammal with a brain could be completely immune to prions. Do you have any more information on that claim?
It’s in the OP article. They haven’t found any infections yet, and it doesn’t appear to affect them. Apex predators have, prior to human intervention, always hunted the old, the young, and the sick. Mother nature appears to have found a way around apex predators all dying from disease to balance the environment.
Afaik it’s because they naturally die before the disease becomes crippling. Or it becomes crippling around or after the normal lifespan of the animal. It doesn’t mean they aren’t affected, it means it doesn’t affect them before they would normally die…
Please don’t anthropomorphize “mother nature”. Mother nature doesn’t think, or make decisions, it is a natural progression of life and death… There is a process and a cycle to much of it, hand waving “mother nature finds a way” ignores and dismisses the reality of it, and excludes the science that helps us understand how our world actually works.
I believe canines were found to be resistant to prion diseases, as they evolved to eat all manner of sick, dying and dead animals. Likely something to do with digestion, gut barrier or blood-brain barrier. Canines are pretty unique in their ability to eat almost anything that was once alive without getting sick.
CWD is a very fast acting disease compared to most prison diseases, and should easily become visible during the lifespan of a dog or wolf.
Scavengers like Hyenas and Vultures too. Vultures even have some strange adaptations to take care of their feet when feasting on scavenged carcasses. Their GI tracts are wild.
You do know that prions aren’t living things right? They don’t “infect”, they are a physical change to a compound (protein) that spreads to other similar compounds it touches. It’s not a virus, or a bacteria.
Unless wolves lack the same proteins that deer also have? Usually this is a mammal thing, not a species thing.
Tipping needs to end. It’s the employer’s responsibility to make sure their employees are paid reasonably. Instead they pass that responsibility to the customer, ensuring tension between customers and staff.
I want workers to demand what they are worth to their employers, and I’m willing to be the asshole to help them accomplish that.
If we all stopped tipping, they’d have no choice but to turn the low wage issue around onto their employers. Then employers will have no choice but the pay their workers more, because otherwise they’d leave their industry for something else.
I don’t care if that means we, as consumers, have to pay a bit more for the food and service. I don’t care if that means that some businesses won’t survive. I want fairness all around
I refuse to tip anywhere new and expand this practice… But with things like restaurants or delivery? Without organization, all that does is further underpay people for their work and increase the chances of spitting in your food
I don’t think there’s a good answer, so I just do it much less
As far as delivery, if I’m charged a delivery fee “because reasons”, that’s the extra money that is my tip. If they’re asking for a tip as well, then no.
But instead of just not tipping, I just don’t get delivery, which I haven’t since the pandemic. Two or three experiences where I was trying to order and all the add on fees plus tips meant that dinner for one was going to cost over $45 and dinner for two, over $60 (when the entrees themselves were like $12-15) and basically that was enough to convince me not to do it.
At one place there was a delivery fee, a delivery service fee, a “take out packaging” fee, a service fee, a charge for ordering less than $25, a driver fee (which they were quick to tell me was not a tip)…and of course still asked for a tip, with the options being 20, 22, and 25%. Even choosing the lowest tip, my single meal was going to cost $46 for food that I could walk in, sit down, order, eat, tip, and leave…all for under $25.
Basically I just don’t get delivery now, and while I know that won’t break the system, maybe if enough people join me it will.
I used to think that way as well. But really, if spit in my food is being used as a threat to tip someone isn’t that extortion?
I’m polite, easy to serve, and even if the food is over-cooked and way too salty (as it was for the single taco I ordered last time I was out) I don’t ask for it to be returned. I’m a model customer, except I won’t tip.
I’m not doing it to be cheap, or out of spite, or in disrespect for the service personnel. I’m doing it to apply pressure so that things will change for the better
Think of it as passive guerilla tactics against a broken system
But what about the inherent coercion of capitalism? The fear of having your food spit in is a kind of coercion, but despite the system being broken, people who rely on tips need that money to survive
It’s a messy issue. If everyone refused to tip as a matter of course and they were paid a living wage I think things would be improved, but on a more immediate and direct level you’re reducing their pay
It’s a systematic problem… Maybe it can be handled individually, but that will create a lot of issues until the pressure of individuals can prompt systematic change
I would rather they felt the pressure to move on to different employment (if they can find it) than deal with the uncertainty and fickle nature of tippers
Where I live some restaurants have started requesting no tips because they pay their workers what they’re worth. If those are around when I go out, I go there. In their absence I don’t tip
Other countries of the world have it figured out, why can’t the U.S? We can be better. Sometimes you have to take a hard stand that feels counter-intuitive to the causes you believe in, in order to push things in the right direction. Do I feel bad about not tipping? Certainly. But I want change for the better and that requires applying pressure to the right places
I’m not ideologically opposed to what you’re saying - I agree with the end goal, I’m just worried about methods. I’m even fine with tipped employees suffering for a bit during transition
But changing jobs is purposely difficult…I don’t think that’s a fair demand through effectively reducing their wages
On the other hand, you brought up something great - if you have places around that have transitioned to a living wage, why not push to go there instead? Restaurants can make this change in a couple weeks if properly motivated, but it would take months of employees struggling until they leave to affect that level of change, and I’d argue a restaurant is more likely to look around and adopt a better business model when their customers dry up than to realize the reason they can’t keep staff is due to tipping expectations
I’m all for your strategy to pressure the holdouts once the tides have turned in an area, and maybe your area is at that stage… But I don’t think most of the country is nearly there yet
For sure. It’s just that the last time I was out I wasn’t able to do that. (An old employer had asked me to help out for the day on short notice, and I was on foot because driving/parking in the area is an expensive nightmare and there wasn’t enough time to take a bus)
Frankly I’d rather make food at home. I’m a decent cook and don’t have to be concerned with morality at all :)
There’s nothing wrong with tipping. I like the option to reward someone who made my experience great. Keyword there is option. Employers should pay employees a living wage, and if customers want to reward a great job with a few bucks on top of that, that should be allowed, even encouraged, but should never feel obligated to tip or shamed for not tipping.
I said living wage, homie, not minimum wage. I think everyone should be paid at least a living wage, I just said tipping in general isn’t bad - it just shouldn’t be used to supplement poor wages.
You said customers should never feel obligated or ashamed. Never. I definitely feel ashamed of using these services and feel obligated to tip generously, and you should too.
So we’re in agreement then? Why are you lighting me up when we’re clearly on the same side? You need to learn to recognize an ally and save the anger for someone who deserves it, or you’ll find yourself without any allies.
Yes, I go to restaurants every so often, and I always tip and tip well. I refuse to punish the workers for the broken system. That doesn’t degrade my argument that they should be paid a living wage instead of having to rely on tips at all.
When I say customers should not feel ashamed or obligated to tip, I mean that the system should change in such a way that tips are not expected and workers are paid a living wage. The system is not currently like that, we get that. Snapping back at me over the way the system IS when we both agree on how it should be is being intentionally argumentative for no reason.
You’re either intentionally being obtuse or are just plain stupid. Customers SHOULDNT be in a position of being forced to tip or be ashamed for normal acitivitues. Absolutely required tipping should not be a thing. It should be optional. It doesn’t matter what the current culture is, because that’s not the conversation. That’s the point.
But they are in a position of being ashamed because those workers need tips. Shoulda woulda coulda, I don’t like it when people decide to not tip as some kind of political protest against tipping.
Reading comprehension was never your strong suit huh? Either that or you failed in debate class. You have the worst debate tactics I’ve seen in a long time.
Let’s never talk about changing anything because it’s not the current climate then, yeah? There’s no point in discussing change at all, clearly, since it doesn’t apply to specifically exactly what’s currently going on. Truly you are a paragon of our time
Been in Japan this summer. A culture where tipping is non-existent. It was such a great experience to not worry about tipping. Instead you simply get outstanding service all the time and workers are simply paid a fair wage.
I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. We’re facing another Republican engineered government shutdown but what’s the #1 priority? Fashion.
Well there’s definitely a rise of ultraconservatism I don’t know if I’d call it fascism personally but American politics is in a dangerous place right now.
What do you expect them to say? That they’re proud of this guy? Even though he’s clearly a madman?
I know IRL gun nuts, and none of them would identify with this person. Also, none of them subscribe to the fallacy/straw-man of a “good guy with a gun”. The ones who carry concealed would remind you that they are carrying for themselves, not for you. If you find an active shooter in a mall, you can count on them… to run away.
Skillful gun nuts know that shooting defensively is never worth the legal hassle unless it saves your life (or a family member’s life).
The shooter in this article is nothing like any of the gun nuts I’ve ever met. This shooter is another Kyle Rittenhouse, someone anxious for a chance to kill a person and get away with it under the excuse of defense.
So, you know responsible gun owners - note I didn’t mention them. I’m happy they exist. But you don’t know every gun owner, or even a significant fraction of them, and if you believe nobody with a gun subscribes to the “good guy with a gun” fallacy then you’re delusional.
I could be considered a gun nut myself but I will not pretend that this behavior is some abnormal outlier. There are plenty, plenty of American gun owners who think like this man does, they just haven’t had the opportunity for their malformed amygdala to get someone killed.
You mention Rittenhouse but he’s a gun culture hero. Zimmerman and the like, all heroes. People who get to use their gun to lay down the law like the Earp posse are generally seen as heroes when they don’t completely fuck up like this guy, they’re not shunned as short-sighted and reckless.
A set of excellent counterpoints. I’d also point out that “gun nut” is quite different than “2nd Amendment nutter”. You’re into guns. Maybe the mechanics, maybe the design aspect, maybe you enjoy shooting as a hobby, maybe all of the above and more. That’s fine, if you’re also a responsible gun owner who secures their weapon, does not leave it loaded when off your person, does not point it at something they don’t intend to destroy, and so on and so forth.
A “2nd Amendment nutter” thinks the 2nd Amendment absolves them of responsibility.
This shooter is another Kyle Rittenhouse, someone anxious for a chance to kill a person and get away with it under the excuse of defense.
Wow, tell me you don’t know anything about the Kyle Rittenhouse story without saying it directly, lmao.
I love how the Rittenhouse story has become such an effective litmus test to easily distinguish between honest left-wingers/progressives, and ones who are either gullible enough to swallow the narrative that is clearly disproven by all of the evidence (up to and including publicly-available direct video evidence) and testimony, or malicious and dishonest enough to cling to said narrative out of solidarity for their political ‘team’, knowing that it is categorically false.
All Kyle had to do to not have any of that happen is not show up. The odds of that dramatically increased when he decided to show up with a gun where he knew a bunch of people, some of whom would would be armed, would be out in force and opposing his views.
Much like a lone women wandering late at night through a crime-ridden part of town getting raped, he may not have done anything wrong, but his bad judgement led to the expected consequences. And before we talk about defending his workplace, there’s a reason many places say to not try to stop robberies - the insurance claim is far cheaper than the cost of most outcomes of trying to stop the thefts, even the relatively positive outcomes.
All Kyle had to do to not have any of that happen is not show up.
Victim blaming.
when he decided to show up with a gun where he knew a bunch of people, some of whom would would be armed, would be out in force and opposing his views.
Open carry state, nobody gave a fuck that he was there while armed. He showed up while obviously visibly armed, and was there walking around while obviously visibly armed, for hours, with zero negative reaction from anyone. He gave some degree of medical assistance to at least 8 people there, according to the trial, and handed out water bottles on request, while walking around yelling “medic” and “friendly”.
Nobody attacked him for “his views”–he wasn’t even counter-protesting (and literally stated he supported BLM in an interview, to boot)! Literally every action he took there, before he was forced to defend his left not once, but three times, was objectively altruistic/benevolent. Hell, we have evidence he was cleaning graffiti off a high school earlier that same day.
The ONLY reason things started to go south is because he put out a particular dumpster fire that happened to be set by a literal homicidal maniac (someone literally released that day from a hospital, where he was held for a recent suicide attempt), whose horrific plan was to wheel said flaming dumpster into a nearby gas station (want to take a few guesses why he wanted to bring a big fireball into a gas station?), and said maniac decided to scream death threats at him (as well as calling him and a few other people (all of whom were white, far as we know) the n-word) for putting out his fire, and later, LITERALLY tried to make good on those death threats.
If someone else had put out that dumpster fire, they would have been attacked instead. This argument is absolutely idiotic. What, are you going to try and tell me that putting out a fire is some sort of aggressive or provocative act?
Kyle never aggressed on anyone, and his FIRST response to EVERY act of aggression against him, was literally TO FLEE. If any of the people he ended up shooting literally LET HIM RUN AWAY, they’d all be alive/not injured. But they INSISTED on attempting their murder, and chased him down, until they had him cornered, and then tried to kill him. He prevented them from succeeding and protected his life. End of story.
Much like a lone women wandering late at night through a crime-ridden part of town getting raped
You’d imply it was her fault by saying that her presence is the reason it happened, lol.
his bad judgement led to the expected consequences.
Bad judgment to put out fires, okay, lol. That’s the lesson everyone should learn from this, right? Don’t put out a fire with an unknown cause, just in case it happened to be
It’s hilarious how after so much time there are still people brain-rotted enough by their ideology to be this smug while saying something that’s literally false lol.
Assuming all of this is true, and I’m not saying it isn’t, how does that in any way refute what I said? Sure, call it victim blaming if you want. I’m very careful when I have to go into bad parts of town at bad times, and avoid them altogether when I can because, even if I’m not doing anything wrong, that’s cold comfort when I’m lying in a hospital or a morgue. So far it’s worked pretty well for me. I suppose that makes me a perpetual victim. Sure, it shouldn’t have to be that way, but I don’t think my being mugged or murdered is going to tip the scales and I don’t have any great desire to be a poster child.
It sounds really similar to what I teach my kids about driving - it doesn’t matter if you’re right but someone else crashed into you, you’re still the one injured or dead
And if someone tries to run you off the road for no good reason, and your swerve to avoid them results in them missing you and crashing into the median and dying, it’d be pretty stupid to blame your presence for their death.
I know IRL gun nuts, and none of them would identify with this person.
Maybe not, but when they resist any and all legislation to control access to guns, don’t support mandatory training, red flag laws, etc, they accept that people like this can legally get them. That’s an acceptable tradeoff for them. Maybe your gun nut friends support reasonable legislation, it’s possible I suppose.
Ultimately this is no true scotsman territory I think.
Hahaha no, he’s not even a “diet” cop (but I love that term), though he clearly fuckin thinks he is. I actually took a security guard training course when I was a teenager, and this motherfucker did everything they tell you not to do. If he saw a suspected threat, he should have called the cops and gotten to safety, according to the training. Even with a gun, you’re not supposed to use it. We got that training because guards who can wear firearms get paid more, and the agency training is would make more on us if we had our certs.
No, no, if we had removed all regulations, like the libertarians want, this gentleman would have voluntarily formed a non-aggression pact with the teens and not shot any. The real problem is the regulations and laws preventing him from forming a pact. If we remove all laws and taxes it will work.
Despite the downvotes, this is true. You could also say, however, that it is an unneccesarily negative way to frame it, when you could also say that autistic people tend to be more consistent in their beliefs even at the cost of personal gain (of which mankind as a whole should learn a bit imo)
I think it’s gone over everyone’s head that I’m a furry from the furry instance The implication being that I’m also on the spectrum. This is based on my own experience and antidotes my first hand assessment of the furry fan base is that it’s full of people that possess a higher than average set of autistic traits. Like half of us are in stem Fields.
I’m relatively sure anyone in frequent contact with members of the furry community can probably provide anecdotal evidence of autistic trait correlation, myself included.
I’m sorry you got the negative reaction for the previous post, but I’m glad someone else backed up the claim of rigid moral values. It’s an interesting link that seems to resonate with me.
We also are more immune than the normies to propaganda. Probably because we don’t give a flying Fuck about what other people’s opinions are. Case in point my post history
As I said in another post, I was under the incorrect impression that it was primarily/exclusively a sexual fetish.
I still stand by my point because according to wikipedia it seems like sexualization is, at least, a major subculture within it, if not an outright majority.
To be clear about my point, two consenting adults can do whatever they want with each other as far as I’m concerned, and if they aren’t hurting anyone, they are alright with me. But the reason people are weird about furries and not a mascot is the sexualization attached to furries, whether justified or not, while anthropomorphized animal mascots are not about sexualizing anything.
Just in case I get you right. I think you are confusing being a Furry with practising sodomy. As a Furry I can assure you, that this accounts for a very small subgroup that - at least I - tend to avoid. Sex is nice as long as everyone consents and is mentally able to consent.
If I got you wrong please clarify what you meant. I don’t want to accuse you of anything ^-^
I think you are confusing being a Furry with practising sodomy.
Nah, I was under the incorrect impression that it was primarily/exclusively a sexual fetish. I still stand by my point because according to wikipedia it seems like sexualization is, at least, a major subculture within it, if not an outright majority.
I do see your point (I think). On the other hand yiff has a wide range from humans with animal features (catgirls, cowgirls, …) up to the more hardcore furry porn. I for example would also say that I have “a minor sexual interest” but that interest does not include the real hardcore stuff.
And with Furry content showing strongly humanified animals it is arguable how bad/harmful said fetish is. But I have to admit that I have too found myself questioning if a bit of yiff I had just seen was a bit too much, but where to draw the line is ultimately highly subjective.
I still wouldn’t compare them to people that sexualize underage (anime) kids just from the matter of fact that kids exist irl whilst humanified beasts are just a product of imagination.
“I’m not implying that taco eaters are responsible for the pandemic, mind you…
But there was always a line around the block at Taco Bell in the early days of the pandemic.”
The moment you say “I’m not equating benign X with problematic Y”, you immediately put the idea in people’s head that X and Y have a strong correlation which serves to further skepticism and judgment of benign X.
If I didn’t do that, I would inevitably be accused of equating them. So I explicitly pointed out that I’m noy equating them. If people interpret that there is a strong correlation between the two, despite what I explicitly said, then that’s on them. If I hadn’t made it clear, then that would be on me.
there are definitely some shitty ones, but in general, the community fosters good people, and good interactions, it’s supposed to be an escapism after all.
Yeah the furry con near were I used to work ended up developing their own police because of how many local businesses were banning them for disruptive behavior, hygiene, and public displays of sexual behavior.
So much time, effort, and resources wasted towards trying to fine someone $500 for doing something humane. Our “leaders” are out of touch with reality. Can we fine them for wasting our tax dollars on shit that doesn’t matter?
You really believe that? I’ve had way too many conversations with people that generally support the mentality of the stick over the carrot.
My cousin, totally not super conservative or anything, just gen x, was talking about how Mike Tyson (I think) had said his son couldn’t box like him cause he didn’t know what it was like to be hungry. I was just like, is that important for us to have boxers?
You must tip your microwave at home. Like the one at applebees, a microwave is a slave of the service industry that relies on panhandling your dinner table to survive.
That’s the real issue. It is 100% not that they’re more environmentally cautious. Between less 16 year olds having jobs and cars and gas and insurance being so much more, less can afford a car. E bikes probably even have more to do with it than environmentalism does.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.