circuscritic @ circuscritic @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

981

Joined

2 yr. ago

You are aware that legislatures cannot be held directly criminally responsible for the laws they pass, right?

I'm not disputing that their actions killed their daughter, I'm trying to explain to you that they cannot be held legally responsible in the manor you're suggesting.

What are you talking about?

Are you saying that instead of suing the hospital, she should start up a PAC to go after hundreds of Texas state politicians...?

Because if you meant sue them for wrongful death, they are exempt. So even if they are more directly culpable in their daughter's death, she cannot bring direct legal action against them for that.

As risky and escalatory as it is, I can at least understand using freight airplanes to deliver incendiary packages to shipping warehouses.

I'm not saying I think it's good, but I can at least piece together the rationale for such actions from Russia.

The same cannot be said for blowing up civilian airliners.

Just from a realpolitik perspective, domestic support for military aid to Ukraine is broadly down across the voting populace in most, if not all, of Ukraine's biggest ($$$$) partners. Eventually that will likely result in the election of candidates who reflect that view.

Want to know the fastest way to not just immediately reverse that, but have 75%+ of the voting populace support radically escalating Western involvement? Blow up one of their civilian airliners.

Shit, blow up a French airliner and I'd say it would be coin flip whether they deploy active duty military ready for combat operations, in theatre, within a month.

Downing a civilian aircraft with a SAM battery, or MANPAD, near an active conflict, is galaxies apart from planting explosives on civilian airliners.

And I don't mean legally speaking, although it is, I mean they aren't even in the same universe when talking about blowback, politics, military responses, threat management, PR, escalation ladders, etc.

Yes, I specifically excluded sanctioned/lawful wildlife management practices.

Unfortunately you'll see this a lot with polar bears, which is one of the reasons why proper waste management is so critical in Arctic towns/villages.

Poor waste management practices are capable of attracting more than just polar bears, but they are the most dangerous, for a host of reasons.

You wanted to engage on the topic of hunting. But you expected to be the only one allowed to be asking questions.

So instead of answering the one question asked of you, you generate bogus reasons to justify why you're above responding to any questions about your motivations, or knowledge/experience of the subject.

I'm not sure you even know what subsistence hunting is. Maybe you know the definition, but not the context. It seems like you assume everyone lives in an urban area, and can live a vegan lifestyle by going to the grocery store.

From eating them and growing up in an area with a lot of subsistence, and sports, hunting.

You mean you don't find merit in them. But I'm done, because at least I tried to answer your questions. Where you made no attempt at answering the one question I've asked you twice.

Which itself is answer enough.

People who hunt prey for trophies, and waste the meat, are also pieces of shit. It's called wanton waste, and it's illegal.

But no one hunts predators for their meat. They hunt them for sport. They hunt them because they get a joy from killing them, and for no other reason. I'm not sure what you're not getting about this. They only keep the meat, because again, it's wanton waste and it's illegal.

Bear meat is disgusting. Predators do not taste good. They're killed so weak men can feel strong. They hunt predators because they enjoy killing for the sake of killing, and for trophies. That's it.

This is the third time I rearticulated the same point, which everyone else here seems to get.

Now that I've done that for you, can you please let me know which one of these you are:

A. Someone who hunts predators.

B. Someone who has no experience with, or knowledge of, hunting.

I think they still have legal requirements about wanton waste, or at least best effort.

The no tag limit makes sense though, as they're an incredibly invasive species and the aspirational goal is removal.

None of this should be considered legal advice, I could be mistaken on the regulations. You should check them out yourself to make sure I'm not full of shit, or confused.

They do. Texas allows ariel hunting of hogs, there's no season, and no tag limit. I know lots of other areas have similar approaches of differentiating hunting laws and seasons when it comes to invasive species.

All the hunters I've known, have been an outdoor guys and nature conservationists, but also conservative usually.

There's prey animals, like deer. Those are hunted for subsistence, to eat and use.

Predators do not taste good, they taste bad in fact. They are not hunted for subsistence to feed your family, they're hunted for sport. They are killed for fun, so assholes can stuff them and mount their heads on walls.

So yeah, there's a difference. Either you yourself, like to hunt predators for sport, or you have no experience with, or knowledge of, hunting at all. Either way, your take is awful.

Fuck anyone who hunts bears.

There is a natural order to prey and predators.

If you're going to hunt a predator, and it's not for sanctioned wildlife management culls, get a Bowie knife and have at it. Otherwise, I hope you suffer a horrible death.

I'm not anti-hunting, at all. Hunting is easily the most humane way to eat meat. But hunting predators is a sport, not subsistence.

You can pretty much guarantee that anyone who hunts predators for sport, is a gigantic asshole and you should not feel bad about wishing them harm. I would take that statement even further, but I don't want the mods to remove this comment.

To be clear, no one likes bear meat, they're opportunistic scavengers. These bears were hunted for sport most likely, but the hunters were slightly better than your average bear hunting asshole, and at least didn't waste the meat. Most likely because it would be a wasted kill, and illegal.

Not nearly as catchy.

I don't know if anything's changed in the last 10-20 years or so, but I was under the impression that Albania was country with a deeply entrenched culture of organized crime, the Albanian mafia if you will.

And isn't one of their biggest businesses, aside from drug smuggling, human trafficking?

If I recall correctly, historically, Southern Italian and Albanian societies shared many of the same social conditions that enabled the rise of Italian and Sicilian organized crime, including a long history generational blood fueds, and something similar to Omertà, the Kanun.

Both of which were social customs and informal legal structures, predicated upon the belief that there were no legitimate or trustworthy authorities that could be relied upon. Whether through corruption, dysfunction, or prejudice in Italy, or the various colonial rulers who controlled what is now modern Albania.

I think I got most of that accurate, but someone can correct me if I'm mistaken anywhere. But, it was incredibly off topic and probably irrelevant, because I'm sure none of that will have any relationship or impact on what happens to the asylum seekers and migrants that Italy is going to be sending their way.

I can't wait for the nonfiction historical accounts of the FEMA deathcamps, or revised textbooks that accurately tell the story of how a devout group of Salem men saved the country from witches and witchcraft.

God damn I'm excited. Let's go Texas, let's get even stupider with it.

These will not be used to shoot down Israeli missiles...

It's not rare. I went to public school in a medium sized, mixed income district, in a red state, that had VT schools, and alternative pedagogy schools for creative and gifted kids. All run by the public school district.

I don't know what you think a Charter School is, but when I say educational style, I mean alternative pedagogies. Which is is how charter schools typically differentiate themselves publicly, but again, they're not mentioning out loud the other aspects that I've laid out previously.

Which is why although you say you understand what I'm saying, I don't think you really do. And maybe that's my fault for not properly articulating everything, but I'm on a phone and these comments are already way too long to properly review and manage.

I didn't say they shouldn't exist. You asked me for ideas for reform. I suggested reading real academics who study this issue, but for the sake of conversation, one of my suggestions was folding the concept of charter schools into the public education system. As in, let them fulfill they're publicly stated objective of developing alternative pedagogies schools for differently abled students, but bring them into the public sector, with all the accountability, transparency, and legal protections for all students.

To be fair, I can see you're being genuine, but not sure you understand the money and influence behind these pushes for charter schools for the past 2 decades.

I'm wondering if part of the disconnect is that your envisioning charter schools from when you were a kid, versus what they are now after the explosion they've had in the last 20 years.

I feel that you sincerely believe this movement is done benevolently, and for the purpose of educating and creating better students. While I don't deny that those schools do exist, nor that many parents and students believe that is the mission statement, that's not as relevant to the political forces driving these changes.

This movement has gained political traction in the last two decades from the same people who push vouchers, and they do it with intent to degrade truly public education infrastructure, and create publicly funded private schools for the correct social and economic classes.

Because otherwise, there's no reason why it couldn't have been done within the framework of public education, just like my old school district did.

Oh, and public education isn't failing. America has some of the best public schools in the world, and some of the worst. This comes down to a lot of factors, including the fact that schools are primarily funded by local property taxes. Meaning wealthy schools get more resources, and poor schools get a whole lot less, even if they're right next to each other.

I'm quite aware of THAAD's capabilities, including its tracking radars, at least as far as publicly disclosed information goes.

That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about this reducing, or removing, one of Iran's primary means of deterrence against Israeli attacks.

If Israel doesn't have to worry about the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles, it frees them up for an even more aggressive course of action.

Unless you're suggesting that this means Israel can, and should, continue to directly attack Iran...?

This defense enables and emboldens Israeli aggression.

It removes, or significantly reduces, the threat posed by Iranian ballistic missiles.

That means, it removes, or reduces, any deterrent effect they have, on moderating Israel.

This is not good, but less because of the risk of American KIA, and more because of how it changes the Israeli calculus.