admiralteal @ admiralteal @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

795

Joined

2 yr. ago

He can definitely delay so long as there are appeals tied up. After that, every time he digs in his heels it's another round of lawsuits until a court has the balls to hold him in contempt and put him in jail or else order asset seizure through a cooperative bank or the like.

It never really was about abortion. It was always about building power for conservative christian institutions. Abortion was just the issue that they were able to build a power base around -- particularly by uniting Catholics and Evangelicals who previously didn't really get along. It was mostly an invented controversy that sprang up in the wake of Roe as part of a larger de-liberalization movement.

Even today, the statistics of people who actually believe that abortion should be fully and unconditionally banned -- what the conservatives are all legislating for -- is only something like 8%. Another 29% think there are at least some exceptions, and a vast majority think it should be mostly or completely legal.

In the numbers, this is a settled issue. It isn't even THAT contentious.

But the issue is politically incredibly useful, and the religiously fundamentalist institutions do a great job having outsized influence and concentrating power. It's a rare opportunity for conservatives to take a pseudo-ethical stance and advocate for an actual outcome -- normally they just look like weird, selfish freaks shouting "no no no" all the time. The fact that the ethics aren't there is irrelevant.

You cannot use bankruptcy to escape a court judgement. Judgements are among the highest-priority debts in a bankruptcy proceeding and would be among the first to be discharged. Trump's wealth may be largely fake, but he certainly has the money for this judgement just in the form of his real estate holdings. Aint escaping it. Her worst case is getting a lien, which would honestly be hilarious against a "real estate mogul".

You CAN be a deadbeat, but the debt continues to exist and new lawsuits can claw resources from you any time the plaintiff is able to identify them.

Not a great system, but this particular loophole does not exist.

Buttigieg is from Indiana.

Nothing good has ever been produced by the GADOT or the greater world of Georgia transportation officials. They're one of the most moronic such organizations in the country and none of their membership will ever go on to do anything meaningful.

Do you have any particular reason for believing that?

I've never gotten the impression that Biden is a true believer of much of anything, except maybe that riding Amtrak is nice. And you're literally posting this on an article reporting on how in backrooms out of view of the press, the rhetoric is very different than the public support.

But he didn't want to die. If you don't want to die -- if you aren't cooperating with the execution -- it is going to be torturous with this method.

The attitude of "this is the way I want to die" is automatically assuming that you want to die. That you're a willing participant. Execution must be presumed to have an uncooperative victim and the humaneness must be judged in that context.

Lot of people saying he should've just let it happen. It would've hurt him less. That's unacceptable to say to a victim of violence in any other context, so I'm not sure why it makes sense to people here.

It's definitionally coercion if the only other option is death. You do not have agency in that situation. End of story.

Which was... dun dun dun, within just a minute or two when it was posted and THREE HOURS before you replied. GASP, you discovered the terrible conspiracy of a typo being fixed! No content was changed!

You're a fucking lunatic.

Nope, was not edited to change contents at any point. You just didn't read it. Compare any relevant timestamps and you'll see you were just being a dolt.

It's OK to be wrong sometimes. You can just be wrong.

"Smart Features" in the Messages app have always been explicitly processed only on-device. This is a big change if it is different than that.

I'm betting they'll make this opt-out, which is fucking shady as hell. And worse, I bet opting out your own messages doesn't stop someone else that is opted in from unknowingly/unintentionally transmitting all your messages that they received. Ugh.

I did, in the comment. Read what I wrote again.

Violation of body autonomy is of the absolute most profound violations and the state has no right to do that. Whether or not people SHOULD have kids is irrelevant; even if they shouldn't, there exists no acceptable power lever to prevent it.

It's also a solution in search of a problem. Human population growth is already slowing and will likely plateau in my lifetime before starting a trend of retreat. Assuming we aren't all dead by way of the collapsing climate already.

For the guy you replied, to the violence isn't a side effect, it's the goal. The cruelty is the point.

And in that case, why even pretend? This entire execution method was conceived as a way to be "more humane". It wouldn't exist if not for that objective. And if we don't care about the cruelty, just use hanging or firing squad.

That might just create a situation where the person goes through all this torture multiple times as they hold their breath and experience the pure agony until passing out only to wake up and have to go through it all again. It maybe seems better, but it's still basically the same torture.

Other than doing it TOTALLY unscheduled in the person's sleep, I cannot imagine a way you avoid the horror of this kind of execution method. And it's hard to even piece together a way you could practically implement unscheduled/in their sleep that wouldn't result in the person refusing to sleep, with sleep deprivation itself being a form of torture.

There was no way to perform the execution correctly. N2 asphyxiation makes no sense as an execution method -- it will only be painless if the person didn't realize what was about to happen or if they were cooperative. If not, it'll mean the person will fight until death. They will be put in a situation of endlessly expanding pain until they can bear it no more.

The idea that an execution method is humane if it would be painless for a cooperative victim, ignoring the experience that will be had be an uncooperative victim, is just... really dumb. It's incredibly dumb.

How it looks to onlookers should in no way factor in to deciding what method you use.

The onlookers don't have to be there. They have a choice.

Yea, it's not that it was botched per se, it's just that this is a terrible, torturous way to execute someone.

N2 asphyxiation is only "peaceful" when it is an industrial accident or performed on a cooperative participant (i.e., self euthanasia) -- it just makes no sense for execution because someone who doesn't want to die is going to be tortured to death by it. Forced to fight every instinct they have to resist breathing until it hurts so bad they think they will die if they don't breath in, except they KNOW they'll die if they breath in so they push on.

It's really, really awful. It's a really horrendous way to execute.

Darning socks is easy and super relaxing. Only takes maybe 20 minutes to fix a typical sock hole. I'll Do it while watching TV. I'd rather repair it than consume more imported crap pointlessly.

Literally no experts have said they are confident the method is painless, though.

Just wikipedia PhDs talking about industrial accidents in vastly different circumstances, where victims were caught entirely unaware.

You're basically asking me to prove the negative - so let's put the shoe on the other foot. Find me medical experts testifying that this execution method would definitely be painless, because it's really easy to find medical organizations and medical experts saying their concerned the process could be torturous.

Dr. Philip Nitschke, a much-interviewed expert on euthanasia that shows up in a lot of these articles and who specifically studied use of N2 asphyxiation, expressed great concerns about how this was being administered. The only way this can even conceivably be administered painlessly is if you either catch someone by surprise or have their full cooperation. If they're an unwilling participant you are torturing them to death using a technique that has an indefinite amount of time to work properly. The setup of how Alabama was going to be doing this would be slow and ineffective, and all of that delay is going to be torturous.

And if you can't find that testimony that this process is definitely humane maybe you should stop assuming it is.

It's true, it's pretty inconceivable that any execution method isn't torturing someone to death. Hard to come up with any theoretical framework for that other than taking a gun to the head in your sleep. But these pseudo-scientific techniques that simply refuse to think through the practicality of administration are entirely designed to make the execution more pleasant to watch for the onlookers and that is particularly heinous.

Stop thinking about the methos you would want used on you if you had to be executed. That line of thinking isn't analogous or reasonable. Think about the technique you use on someone who doesn't want to be executed. Because that's an entirely different thing and the practicality of administering is part of how you make it more humane if that's really your goal - and to be clear I'm sure that that's not anyone's goal here.

The goal of the using this technique is being fulfilled perfectly by you, since it was to fool people into believing there is such a possibility as a more humane execution ( that was still reasonable for onlookers).