crapwittyname @ crapwittyname @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

462

Joined

2 yr. ago

Except they are, though. They're bred to be as deadly as possible. This is a verifiable fact.

I mean that's fairly obvious from subtext. If you had, you would most likely be too traumatised to be defending them on an online forum.

Can this possibly be true?
If a dog switches to aggressive mode and stops listening to commands, trying to attack (another dog, a cat, a deer, a bird, a human) that's what I mean by "going postal". In most cases they are restrained on leash. The outcome, and the target (for the sake of this argument) are not important. It is not possible to predict accurately when they will do this.

Each more similar than the last!

If you're a dog owner and you're paying attention, then your personal experience should include the following truth: any dog can go postal. If you then combine this with the knowledge that pitbulls are much more deadly than other dogs when being agressive, then you must reach the conclusion that this breed should be banned, even though that is admittedly a sad conclusion.

The source of the most greenhouse gas emissions by far is power and heating. Switching to renewables is the answer. Like, yesterday. For ecological diversity, agriculture has to become sustainable and deforestation has to stop.
For air pollution, we need to ditch our cars.
For ground and water pollution, we need to ditch plastics. These are all just the biggest factors, starting points really. And they all intermingle and affect each other.

Its not really about the size, though. These dogs have been bred to have a trait called "gameness", which is prized in fighting dogs, because it means they will disregard exhaustion, injury and all other distractions when in aggressive mode. They don't let go, ever. Where most dogs, even big ones like German shepherds or rottweilers, will bite and tear and then let go and usually retreat, bull terriers will not stop until they or the prey are dead or incapacitated. Sometimes they will continue to attack even when their prey has stopped moving. That's why these dogs are dangerous. Any dog can snap and attack. Yes, even your auntie's 17-year old Bassett hound. Any dog. But when a bull terrier snaps it's potentially life threatening.

You're right. Did it help? Absolutely. But it's such a complex situation that I reckon no single human fully understands how, or the interplay between that and all of the other factors at play.
And from there, moving towards a place where there is justice/fairness is impossible because a consensus on what that even means is impossible. It's incredibly depressing.

I don't think that question will have a remotely simple answer.

Mate. The Christian religion spawns YE creationists. Thoughts and prayers for the victims of avoidable massacres. Life sentences of servitude for mothers of rape babies. Life sentences of fear for gay people.
All religion is twisted. Why pick on one or another? They all need to go.

Can Iran not be a victim of the west but also wrong in their treatment of women?
Society isn't stuck in the medieval ages there. It's cruel, sure. But they have phones, coffee and automatic weapons just like everyone else, so they're firmly in the same age as everyone else.
This woman is using her privilege as a prominent(ish) figure to highlight the injustices prevalent in Iran, so she's unlikely to get the worse punishments you've mentioned. I say fair play to her and I hope more people get to speak out.
Sadly, though, history tells us that dictators can do whatever the fuck they like to their own people with no repercussions.

Tesla was an idiot

You sure about that?

Because there are about 4 billion other women on the planet you could date, and according to my emails, at least hundreds in your local area.
There are no other horny global trading blocs in Britain's local area.

Ugh, I got meter all down my whites

I see what you're getting at. Cleaning up the statistics, researching the answer to your question and finding upper and lower bounds for actual figures is beyond what I've got time or patience to do though. There also remains the problem that the FBI stats are self-reported by officers working in a fundamentally racist institution, so it would be likely a biased (and therefore useless) sample and therefore a pointless waste of time.

How does that work?

Sorry, I meant "included", not removed. Edited.

I'd be curious of this

Here is a secondary source, with info to link to the primary.

Fully agree

It shouldn't be, no. But it looks like we either get to choose between this (gestures broadly) or revenge of the Blair years, so I suppose it does.
If you're asking specifically about financing, then no it doesn't. I believe our economy has shifted way too far over to the free market side since Thatcher and we need to undo what she did so we can have a common sense mixed economy. The landscape would be so different in this situation that PFI wouldn't be feasible, let alone necessary. In the current landscape, or as it was in the Blair years, I don't think I can propose a better way to pay, though I'm sure there was one.

Rather we accrued debt for that than water company dividends.

I think your approach is decent but you've perhaps downplayed a thing or two in your analysis of the counterfactual.

• The rate goes from 50% to 40% when the "race: unknown" cases are removed included.
• A black person is 7 times more likely than a white person to be wrongly accused of homicide.
• The US police force (including the FBI) are unfortunately, institutionally, foundationally racist.
• Most crucially, the 50% refers only to arrests made, not convictions. This is especially interesting when taken with the above points (though coming up with corrected figures is too much hard work for me today)

Finally, if we were to assume the numbers are true and accurate, what would that actually tell us? White supremacists would have you believe it's proof of some kind of genetic inferiority. I could get into why that argument is utterly retarded but it would be a wall of text so, unless you ask. I think what it points to are two things: systemic racism in policing and crime reporting, and a race-biased wealth gap causing greater crime in African-American communities.