CrypticCoffee @ CrypticCoffee @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

145

Joined

2 yr. ago

To save dogs, you would advocate killing the children of slaves? The lengths you'll go...

I know the debate about nature vs nurture and it's relevant in some debates. Not this one. People do not have lions and tigers as pets. Some zoo owners probably feel they're passive with the right ownership. Doesn't make owning them good and sensible. If people cannot act sensibly (and they won't), legislation has to kick in.

It is a viscious cycle, and I dont disagree that owners are part of the problem. Shrugging and going "ah well" doesn't fix the problem. Doing nothing gives owners almost the legal freedom to use their dogs to kill folk and get away with it.

Claiming ignorance to avoid solving a problem is weak or deceptive.

These dogs are bred to be strong. To kill. They don't belong in homes and society near children. They should never have been bred in the first place nor imported, but that happened, so gotta deal with it.

People buy these dogs to be intimidating. Compensating for something, I expect. If people are licensed and can prove training, fine, keep them, but if they have already been raised bad, it's probably too late and too risky. A school girls runs past, and bam, disfigured.

You're assuming how this can be done. The law in the UK is that it is illegal to import or breed these dogs. You can implement legislation in which dogs can live out their lives and eventually it ain't a problem.

Of course, I am not willing to watch children and old people getting mauled because you care about violent dogs designed to kill. Kill 'em like they kill me burgers...

Are both dangerous in the wrong hands? Yes.

Seeing things you don't like and blaming the internet...

"I find it particularly hilarious that England calls these American bully X"

"The American Bully Kennel Club divided the American Bully into four categories, including the XL, Pocket, Standard, and Classic, whereas other registries, including the UKC, have approved one consistent size standard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bully

When you hate the English so much, you just spout bullshit and end up looking silly....

Well, I don't really want to install Facebook spyware on my phone. Signal was made by the guy that designed the encryption used on top apps (if they haven't circumvented that to spy on you yet).

If one of their relatives had cancer, it would be belittling that experience. I would not do that unless I wanted to be a dick.

Try to give a name and model. An interesting privacy suggestion on a non privacy respecting website means folk are forced to click it.

It's weird to rely on proprietary when you can use Matrix spaces.

If you set your language on account, it should bring back stuff set as your language and undefined.

But the companies chosen for login is a slap in the face of anyone who cares about privacy.

If it is e2e encrypted, why would this change mitigate what they are concerned about?

That is a massive disappointment. Hopefully Element gets their video calls sorted. Why can I not just have privacy tools that I can use? Why are the good ones taken away?

You nailled it in the last paragraph. It is important to not get angry at customers. It isn't their obligation to pay you a living wage. Secondly, the company chooses how much the meals are and indirectly how much they rent their tables per hour. If it isn't viable, they should increase prices.

Customers may be struggling. Could be their first meal out in months. The company invited them in with these cheap prices.

Tipping culture is like "hey, come in, eat cheap. Oh, and please pay our staff on the way out." You are an employer, not a table rental company.

It's not the cloud. It's just some else's computer.

Sorry you lost that stuff. Did you manage to re record?

Sanity is restored.

Love KDE, and good to see them chipping away at these pain points.

The cows are bad it seems, but it's glossing over natural gas companies not maintaining their infrastructure of leaky pipes. They are both larger emission producers, and completely unnecessary and unjustifiable.

Edit: It's hard to feel that the environmental debate has been hijacked. Even when an article lists 2 higher sources of methane production with corporate leakage in gas pipes, the focus is solely on beef. Is this industrial astroturfing, or vegans that have their own skin in the game so to speak and this isn't about the environment. The environment is a complex topic that requires multifaceted solutions to solving different contributory factors, yet it's been condensed down to this weird meat eating witch hunt.

It was actually the BBC that documents this, and those expansions. Foreign policy wise, it's about as imperial as it comes. It's pro-Israel, pro-Ukraine, pro-NATO.

Even if the point you raise is technically correct, knowing interests in that area are uncomfortable about that and pushing through that, could be construed as a little antagonistic. The west had nuclear non-proliferation treaties in this regards post the cold war to remove tensions. This was one of those policies aimed at de-escalation. Even if it's technically legal, choosing actions that will piss off countries you're trying to work through de-escalations with either stupid or antagonistic.

I think the Russian propaganda line is that NATO started this, so Russia are justified. To make it clear, Russia aren't justified to invade a country and commit atrocities, but even then, in any situation, if you cannot look back at your own actions, and think is there something we could have done differently, you're doomed to repeat the same mistakes. There is often this weird view that your side can do no wrong. The reality is, both can, and there can be multiple assholes countries around the table, even if one is a far bigger asshole country.

I understand the concept of a safe space. I'm referring to the pro-China/Russia views. I'm a British democratic socialist. A proud lefty. I dislike large countries and their foreign policy (Russia, China and US). With that, I dislike my government's conduct in the world, and their actions in support Israel, and Saudi etc. I am frequently dismayed and embarrassed. However, some of the pro Stalin stuff is weird, disturbing and has festered for a while. Can you be principled when you condemn some atrocities and rationalise away others?

I will engage in debate of course, and challenge where fit. I don't think that echo chamber was good in some respects.

I'm not going to defend Azov, or their beliefs. Their prominence came when they were defending from invasion, including Mariupol in which civilians were killed, their homes were destroyed, and the city starved and flattened.

While no sane person thinks Azov is a good thing, why is the existence of misguided assholes worse than the flattening of a city and killing civilians?

"This city got razed to the ground" "Good, the people defending those civilians were bad people with bad tatoos"

How can you make that argument and consider yourself the good guy?

It's ok, you're not on reddit now.