Riccosuave @ Riccosuave @lemmy.world

Posts

11

Comments

1,236

Joined

2 yr. ago

You want to know what is even more fucked up. The Renton police King County Sherriff's office was conducting an emergency response drill in the same parking lot less than 250 feet away from where his car was AT THE EXACT SAME TIME THIS HAPPENED. He didn't have to "call the fucking police", he could have literally rolled down his window and screamed for help, and they would have come running. Also the police station is literally like 3 blocks away from where this store is located anyway. Fuck this dumb cunt. If it was up to me he would be getting life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Edit: (Source)

It seems that way, but I don't think that is how the Russians see it. It will certainly be interesting to see what transpires after Mad Vlad finally kicks off.

Nice username 👏

you think Russia today is top 3 global power? by what metric?

Yes, by individual military power, which is the only metric that actually matters when you get down to nut-cutting. Barring some massive geo-political or technological shift, it is going to stay a tri-polar world.

By who exactly? We are moving toward permanent tri-polar authoritarianism: China, Russia, and the United States. Nobody is coming to save us with "sanctions". We already lost the war. It's fucking over. People just haven't come to terms with that reality yet.

It is quite literally about 24 hours worth of income for ol' Jeff B.

Good to know, but made my asshole pucker a little bit when I first read that because you know he is going to scream bloody murder about this being total proof of impropriety by the jury, which puts them in additional danger among other things...

It does not help him among the Republicans who are passively accepting Trump, or anyone else.

See, you say that, but that is a historically illiterate perspective. The guy feeds on the medias negativity bias towards him. It literally makes him stronger because the entire Republican media apparatus is now designed to spin any criticism or bad news about him into another attack vector for them to further erode democracy. Their messaging is so overwhelming that this firehose of falsehoods strategy has become unquestionably effective. It no longer matters what the facts are, it's only about the vibes.

So let me tell you how this is going to go: Trump is going to win because he is the ultimate martyr of white victimhood. The poor white working class will burn this country to the fucking ground before they allow anyone else to be doing perceptually better than them en masse. These people truly believe that the only thing better than helping someone up is standing on their fucking head and watching them drown. So, he is going to win because the American experiment has failed. You can take that to the bank because you know deep down I am exactly right.

Not only can it happen, it is likely to happen, and nobody is coming to save us.

Then why was Michael Cohen convicted? Was that a political persecution too, or are you just crying foul because somebody finally held your knuckle-dragging god king to account for once in his miserably pathetic fucking existence?

If they sentence him to prison now, he will never see the inside of a cell before the election. It only helps his cause. You are so god damn naive if you don't think that is the case. I'm looking for hard fucking time, no more pussyfooting, no more saber ratling. In order to do that he has to first lose the election, and then get bent over by the DOJ. That is the only way we have a chance of getting justice. If you don't believe that then that's on you, but you are 1000% fucking wrong.

Locking him up over this conviction will only serve to embolden him, and win him sympathy amongst low information voters. Getting a conviction for colluding to retain state secrets, and potentially selling them to foreign actors is a whole different ball game chief. None of the prosecutions that matter are getting done before the election. That is just the fucking facts. I want him getting fisted in the ass with no lube by the Justice Department, and throwing him in jail now guarantees that never happens. Use your brain.

I'm only interested in prison in the Federal cases, and that will only happen if and when he loses the election. After that I want Jack Smith to go full gloves off on the classified documents case, force the 11th circuits hand to recuse Loose Cannon, and then sit his fucking ass in court where they are pushing for life in prison without the possibility of parole. Then he can sit in his special cell all by himself with his secret service detail while he slowly rots from the inside out.

Again, it was an extreme hypothetical. There were multiple people in this thread who outright suggested that as an option, which is why I asked the question.

Regarding your first paragraph: I was operating based on a very loose hypothetical question that you posed. So, I think you're unintentionally strawmanning me here a little bit...

As far as the second paragraph is concerned I see your point. However, I specifically said life had to consume other organic material to survive, but not necessarily kill in the process. At some level of the food chain it does ultimately become a necessity though, and I do not see that as an ethical dilemma per se.

People can complain about the system and try to make it better without having all of the answers.

I totally agree, and I'm fine with that.

Imagine if there was a life form stronger or smarter than humans, what would you want to say to it? “Life only comes from death so eat me or abuse me”. We can and should do better.

As far as we know the propagation of life requires the consumption of other life as inputs, or in other words every single living thing on this planet must consume material from other organic life to subsist.

Therefore, in your hypothetical I would expect that any life form that required the domestication and industrial consumption of sentient life-forms or their byproducts as a matter of survival to absolutely do so regardless of the ethical implications. If it was a matter of survival, we would become an input. Absolutely zero question about it.

I was using that as an extreme hypothetical. You can call that disingenuous if you like. I just don't see how you can remove "animal suffering" from the equation without enforcing that measure. Otherwise all you are doing is drawing a subjective line around what suffering is acceptable and what isn't. I'm personally fine with trying to make that determination in the least arbitrary way possible with the best technology possible so we can progress society forward, but let's not act like there still won't be people who see that cost as unacceptable.

/agree

First, I just want to say that this isn't personal to me. I am concerned with the overarching ramifications of dismantling the current industrial meat, animal, and agricultural industries without first having sufficiently scalable solutions to replace them. This will kill a lot of people, and they will die in horrible ways. If you want to stop the suffering of animals you better know how to do so in a way that won't cause additional suffering to humanity, otherwise you are never going to reach the critical mass necessary to make the change. I'm also more than willing to admit that the greed and corruption in the governmental and economic systems of the world would need to be changed as well. Good luck with that, I fully support it.

Saying "life only comes from death" is a cowardly reductionism.

No, it is an objectively verifiable fact that is backed up by even the most basic level of scientific literacy. You are confusing the higher order ethical dilemmas of sentient consciousness with the fundamental realities of nature. You can dislike it, and I understand that. I don't like it either, but I am also not naive enough to simply ignore reality because it makes me feel bad. You are using the same kind of blind dogmatism in your response that you are accusing me of using even though I did no such thing.

sustaining human life does not require the wanton suffering of animals.

That is entirely dependant upon your interpretation of "wanton". There is currently no other way for us to sustain life on this planet with the same degree of convenience that is afforded to us by the industrialization of the food system. Can it be made better? Sure, and I am 1000% in favor of that. But suggesting that we are going to be able to eliminate the need for animals in the supply chain anytime soon is a complete fantasy. Even if we could, there will be other health considerations that come from that which need to be researched, and well understood before we bank our survival on them. That will take many decades at best.

Don't be a coward like I used to be by pretending that animals and plants are the same.

I literally never said that. You're projecting here, which is whatever honestly. I get people make this argument. I'm just not one of them.

The fact of the matter is that humans have not been a collaborative member of any ecosystem for tens of thousands of years.

I'm not sure it has been quite that long, but I agree with your general premise. Overall humanity is a destructive force if you consider the preservation of nature in its pre-industrial form to be optimal. I can appreciate that argument. I'm not entirely convinced that human life is more valuable than any other life. I'm also not entirely convinced that the proliferation of life more generally has any objectively quantifiable value. That is a philosophical argument that is beyond the scope of this conversation. Again, I'm only interested in logistically feasible goals that can be realistically implemented.

Humans are omnivores and the simple reality is that as an omnivore with options at your disposal you have a choice about whether the process of sustaining your life involves wanton suffering at a massive scale or not.

Not really. What I do personally is entirely inconsequential. Systems matter. People don't. I don't enjoy killing things. I don't "derive pleasure" from the suffering of others in the way you are accusing me of. However, I am willing to accept the ethical realities of eating animal protein, and I understand that I would not be alive today if my ancestors had not done the same for billions of years. So no, I don't enjoy it, but unlike you I do accept it. I am perfectly willing to facilitate moving the system in a more humane direction in whatever small ways I can make an impact, but I'm also not stressing about livestock having to die in order to feed people either. On some level it just is what it is.