Guest_

guest_


— Guest_ Report User
/bi 82 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
Not quite. Men lie on women too, and the guilty often lie about guilt regardless of gender. As for the video camera- it’s usually better than nothing- but generally people don’t switch on cameras until things have already escalated- so even video evidence may either miss crucial moments of evidence before filming started, or the missing moments can leave critical doubt which then puts us back to testimony and very possibly conflicting accounts. A home camera that’s always filming can be a good general precaution and would be running for the entire incident- but it is limited to the rooms and angles covered, so you still carry risk; and if you are attacked outside your own home you can’t really control wether there is a camera with audio constantly covering you.
Tax money being put to good use again 16 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
I dig the fun fact and hypothesis. Thank you. I don’t recall saying that a person could self impregnate- but I wrote a lot so if I made a mistake or it was hard to read- my apologies. The main point I recall making on “hermaphroditism” was just that generally speaking genetically “hermaphrodites” tend to be “male” aka XY chromosome. The two most common arguments I hear when it comes to rejecting gender identity determination are that a “male” has a penis or a “male” has an X and Y chromosome. The chromosome is the only factor relating to sex that can’t be altered or disguised presently- pointing to a bit of the silliness of the entire thing. I guess the third common argument hinges on wether a person produces egg or sperm- but since people can be born without or lose the ability to produce these things; and what dictates that is generally chromosomes, that’s another silly criteria.
2
Lmao got em 19 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
So I mean- yeah. The whole anti animal suffering logic to veganism is a touch arbitrary when we get to the philosophy of what makes it ok to kill a bug but not a shrimp, what makes a lizard any more worthy as a life form than a bacteria? What makes a plant less worthy as a life than a cow? That said- we all draw arbitrary lines. This lie is ok but that lie isn’t. Using one drug recreationally is ok but this other one isn’t. Etc etc. at the end of the day it often hinges on some level of practicality. It just isn’t possible to live without hurting by something or someone. Wether by necessity or self interest, few if anyone never breaks or bends their principles, most of us simply justify those breaks or bends. I can’t however say that just because we can’t get 100% results means that 0% is the only other option. Trying to reach 100% and falling short is probably better than settling for not trying because you can’t perfectly execute a principle. Though I would generally agree.
Lmao got em 19 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
Given that our knowledge of cognition even in dogs- man’s best friend, our 40,000 companions and the creatures which many humans consider as literal family- sometimes consider more important than family or other humans- is extremely lacking- take those two facts and combine them; then factor in that we haven’t put anywhere near the time, effort, or care into understanding plants as living beings, and plants are far more foreign to out biology and cognition than most any animal, including our beloved dogs. What we get is a big question which doesn’t get much attention let alone even a thousandth of the research put into understanding the cat- another prominent animal in our lives that we have surprisingly sparse understanding of.
Lmao got em 19 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
Yes, various plants have all manner of distress response. Some plants have evolved to be able to “summon” insects or such to defend them, some plants “share” light or otherwise communicate and collaborate. Of course, the general conclusion is that plants are far simpler organisms and don’t “think” or “feel.” Of course- that’s the same argument that was applied to animals and often still is. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that medical science even recognized babies could feel pain. Let’s allow that to sink in- until the 1980’s, any given credible medical source would tell you that a human baby didn’t feel pain- or at the least that it couldn’t store a memory of that pain- that essentially pain didn’t effect babies. Human babies.
1
/bi 82 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
@general_failure- that is not the case we are discussing. That IS “Thurston v state” but wrong Thurston, wrong state (Texas vs. Maryland,) the docket number and details are provided above.
Though you do bring an interesting case, and I thank you.
Tax money being put to good use again 16 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
@karlboll- I am humbled by yours as well, and your good spirit. Thank you for all the excellent memes.
2
I know the lawsuits over, but oh well 1 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
I’m not taking a stance on the issues around Mr. Depp’s personal life. I would caution against taking such endorsements to heart however. Let us recall the long list of celebrities and public figures from actors to presidents who have received glowing endorsements of personal character from coworkers. Bill Cosby, Donald Trump, Tom Cruise- so many names. Let us also not forget that people can work closely together for years and not even know their kids names or their hobbies let alone their true character or intimate personal details.
So I mean… character testimony should be approached with caution- especially when the person making said statements is in a position where their very lively hood might hinge upon what they say about a person, even more so a minor player in the same industry as a well connected giant. To be clear, I’m not saying Mr. Depp isn’t a good person. I’m not saying this woman is lying. I’m just saying that there is often more that what we see or want to see.
5
Lmao got em 19 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
I mean- what vegan hasn’t had to hear the “would you eat a chicken sandwich if someone threatened to kill 5 chickens if you didn’t..?” Or “if you’re vegan how do you justify driving a car/using electricity from fossil fuels” etc etc. In the end that’s all a bit circular. People should be free to make personal decisions about their lives overall.
There are however- in closing- valid concerns and criticisms surrounding vegan practices. These aren’t things that should be held against the character of any particular vegan, and no single vegan should be or is qualified to speak for every one who calls themselves a vegan or holds “vegan ideals.” There are things we can discuss though- ideas and perspectives to be shared.
Lmao got em 19 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
I don’t really blame anyone who tunes out the moment someone taking a pro gun stance mentions “constitutional rights” because most often, what comes after is either the exact same parroted argument that’s been said a million times or just.. utter nonsense. Ideas like the rights in the constitution are free from all constraint- which all we need to do is consider if constitutional rights know no restriction… how is it constitutional to throw a person in jail or require them to wear clothing in public or what part of the constitution allows the law to restrict things like necrophilia?
It’s like… derp.
The “vegan conversation” follows much the same pattern. As much as so many people cringe at “actually, I’m vegan” or such- imagine how so many vegans feel when the moment someone finds out or notices they are vegan- they can already predict how things will likely go?
Lmao got em 19 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
.. smallest, “low power” cartridges are referenced as “powerful rounds” and blatant factual errors are made like stating a common rifle has a cyclical rate that would make a chain gun jealous. This cements the stance of so many “pro gun” people that “anti gun” people are too ignorant to discuss the issue, that they will do or say anything. Etc etc. it creates grounds to dismiss even legitimate arguments without listening because after having one’s time wasted so many times, why would you listen now? The reverse is true as well- with “anti gun” people often being subjected to “hill people” arguments and ridiculous decrees. The number of “pro gun” people I’ve heard make impassioned arguments based in their constitutional rights… by people who then proceeded to demonstrate through their words that they didn’t actually know what the constitution said let alone understand the legal or functional principles or even basic functioning of the constitution or it’s place in law- staggering.
Lmao got em 19 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
.. and a litany of other issues that are of more practical concern to society at large than who he plans to vote for. He is often the target of mistruths or half truths, salacious reporting etc. and each such story not only distracts from the relevant- it desensitizes us. “The boy who cried wolf” and all that. When you criticize an ideology, a person, etc. and you do so repeatedly under easily disproven or fundamentally flawed methods and reasoning- it generally hurts a cause. Each rebuffed attempt creates an image that you’re simply “out for blood” and will grasp any straw, or that your entire point isn’t valid because so many aspects are faulty. We see this prominently in issues like the “gun debate.”
Those “pro gun” people often roll their eyes as words like “assault weapon” or “bump stock” enter a public lexicon and are thrown around and misused. So many gun laws and debate topics rely on talking points that anyone with causal fire arms knowledge could easily debunk. The…
Lmao got em 19 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
On that note- much of what I’ve said may sound like a glowing review defending vegan ideologies or even advocating them. I will be clear when I say I generally do not. I simply believe in reason and motivating bias. It is also true that I am against misdirected criticism. That is to say, even if I don’t support a politician but someone outright lies about them, of course I would speak up- what is being attacked there isn’t the politician- the truth is being attacked. What’s worse, where valid criticisms exist for a thing and we focus on easily debunked mistruths or faulty logic and poor demonstrated understanding- that pulls a potentially productive conversation into a useless place. An example that is topical is Mr. Musk. Of hot debate are his politics. He’s being “attacked” as a flip flopper or conservative in liberals clothing. But… this just pulls the conversation away from relevant topics like his mistreatment of workers, disregards of rights and law, grand and false promises…
Lmao got em 19 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
.. can do more harm than good depending upon the circumstances. A classic example is where many programs where volunteers would travel to underdeveloped communities and build things have fallen out of favor. In many cases these programs were actually shown to do harm. Having free labor come in and erect buildings tends to have a negative impact on those who’s livelihoods come from building things. So many of these programs have shifted to providing labor for native companies to build faster or take on more complex projects, or simply raising funds and offering grants to local businesses and those in a community with plans and demonstrated ability to deliver plans for a greater good. There are many other examples, but never forget that many believed colonialism was “helping” “primitive” peoples “become better.” So intentions aren’t where the rubber hits the road.
Lmao got em 19 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
I will say that we can argue that even if trying does no practical good, that making an effort in the interest of doing good is better than not trying at all- in that view we could see that if a person has all failing grades in school, it doesn’t change reality if they study hours a day or skip class everyday- the reality is the grades are failing. That said- most people would probably be more sympathetic to the failing student who is making every effort they can to try and do better even if it isn’t paying off. The practical reality is that there is a greater chance in general that the person making some effort might actually one day see positive results from their efforts versus the person who is putting in no effort.
Of course- it’s also true that sometimes trying to do good is worse than doing nothing. Often we try to do good for how it makes us feel vs. actual results. Good intentions are behind some terrible things in history. Those trying to “help” out of good intentions…
Lmao got em 19 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
I can put it into another frame to make more sense of it. Someone who wants to preserve water because they are concerned about the environment or the exploitation of water rights for the less privileged- they might avoid long showers and use more efficient appliances. They might use low/no water landscaping at home and not consume drinks like soda which as an industry tends to use a lot of drinkable water to produce a much smaller volume of liquid product. Things like that. Most of us upon hearing someone say they are a water conservationist wouldn’t scream: “gotcha hypocrite!” Because we saw them with ice in a drink or swimming in a lake. The idea is that some reduction in harm is better than none, not that we can escape practical reality through idealism. For most anyway. There surely are those vegans who are obnoxious or completely lacking awareness. There are people like that who aren’t vegan though- so that’s not a specific strike against vegans.
Lmao got em 19 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
… we could say it isn’t actually possible to be a “pure vegan.” Common touchscreens like those in phones are often made with animal products for example. Buuuut…. Well…. The thing is that these things are really inescapable. Dirt itself- the place many veritable a come from- is full of animal products. Even many rocks and minerals come from animals (long gone.) The misconception is that vegan philosophy is all about not using animal products or benefiting from them. That’s not 100% true. Many wide spread vegan philosophies simply say that a vegan tries to minimize direct relationships to animal exploitation- and with reasonings based in animal suffering and/or the environment; and when practical or possible. With that understanding we can see that swallowing a fly doesn’t make a vegan a hypocrite nor does necessarily driving a car or using a computer or even wearing an animal product perhaps.
Lmao got em 19 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
.. purpose of using their remains, nor were made to unduly suffer by any forces other than nature. This explanation may not satisfy all, but it’s fairly reasonable. If we were going to argue that vegans cannot drive it would make far more sense to point to the vehicles. While companies like Michelin have begun producing “vegan tires,” cars are chock full of animal products, not just things like leather interior- synthetic rubbers used in tires, seals, etc and all manner of elements of the car contain animal byproducts from animals that were killed in our own lifetimes and for the explicit purpose of processing them for commercial exploitation. Modern cars are packed full of electronics- electronics which use things like glues and screens and batteries which often contain animal products. You can see where that is going… in the modern world where cell phones and computers are so necessarily for so many to conduct their basic lives…
Lmao got em 19 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
This is one that comes up here and there. So, “fossil fuels” are almost entirely plant and bacterial matter- which would generally be considered vegan. There may and likely are some animals like fish in these fuels, in very small, generally most likely near infinitesimal amounts. On the one hand, hearing “it’s fin if there’s a little animal in there…” may irk anyone who’s ever had to pass on their favorite eastern with a vegan companion because meat and plants are prepared in the same space etc; on the other hand- we have to remember that the idealism of veganism isn’t actually about not using animal products- it’s in large part about avoiding or mitigating the exploitation of or cruelty to animals. In the case of fossil fuels, no cruelty is done to animals and no animals are strictly speaking exploited. The animals were dead- for eons- before their products were used- after nature had transformed their remains into a completely different form. The animals weren’t killed for the…
/bi 82 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
So it behooves most people to have a solid understanding ding of self defense laws before you need them. It behooves most people to have some sort of training before it is needed. In the moment though- the best you can do is make the best choices available, the consequences of those choices will reveal themselves over time. When life decides only shit sandwiches are on the menu, you just have to try to do whatever you think is going to make swallowing that shit sandwich easier.
There’s no great answer. When violence starts, everyone tends to lose something. That’s why most people who know violence we’ll tend not to glamorize it. Violence is a necessary part of reality at times. When it isn’t necessary we can try to limit our losses by avoiding it or being tactical.
/bi 82 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
You didn’t choose to be attacked necessarily. You may have no culpability at all- payed it safe, didn’t instigate, etc etc. but.. you were attacked. Now we have choices. Life is like that. It isn’t always “choose a shit sandwich or a delicious banquet”- that choice is far less common than “what type of shit do you want to eat in your shit sandwich?”
At the point you’re facing violence you are most likely about to eat a shit sandwich. Your choices in life to that point will factor in- it’s hard to learn and master Aikido in the 5 seconds before someone starts hitting you. It’s probably too late to go back and find red flags and stay away from this person etc.
but the choices we make in the moment will also factor in, and those we can change in the moment.
/bi 82 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
Life isn’t fair. You do everything right and make only “smart moves” and you can still end up losing all your money when your investments cave. If we are living in the wild on our own abilities and determination- one bad break and we are dead. That’s how it is. How it’s always been. The bear attacks and even if you kill it- you may still die. That’s a bit unfair to go through the struggle to kill ahead and then you die- but… that’s how it is. So when we take our lives in our own hands- things can go any which way even if we do it all “perfectly.” Actions have consequences.
/bi 82 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
And if that happens, you might go to jail or lose a law suit later. That would suck, but… it would still be better most likely than being dead. Even if we aren’t talking death- I’d rather lose a $10,000 civil suit than have an eye gouged out. My eyes are worth more than $10,000 to me or a year in jail.
That’s called- in old school parlance- “being an adult.” The entire concept of self defense is shrouded in allusions of accountability and self determination. The “big boy/big girl” pants we put on when we say: “I’m not taking peoples shit, I am in charge of my life and am not someone who just goes along with whatever comes my way..”
That philosophy goes both ways. The “big boy/big girl” doesn’t cry. They pay their money and take their chances.
/bi 82 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
.. is gone.
3. If you can’t avoid it, can’t escape it or de escalate without force- now you’re in a place where the ONLY option is force. If you do not seriously fear for you life or safety- you may strike back, however you may face legal issues later if it can be demonstrated you had no serious threat. In this situation if you choose force, using the absolute minimum should generally be the strategy.
If you DO seriously fear your life or safety- like you said, do you want to die? Deal with the situation. If you are in danger and have no other viable options, you have to use force or just resign yourself to whatever fate the other party decides. Most of us will choose to use force if it’s that bad. One should still likely attempt the least amount of force practical if one has the presence of mind to consider the future in the moment- but if you feel your life is in danger, you’re going to do whatever you think or reflexively act on in that moment.
/bi 82 comments
guest_ · 1 year ago
.. a shared friend etc.
practice de escalation in conflicts and certainly don’t escalate.
2. If you can’t avoid the set up, try to avoid the fight. If things start to heat up, walk away. Run away. Leave. If they jump straight to violence and any of those things are an option- use them. Get away. Call the police, report the act.
If you’ve already been struck, if possible and feasible- do one of those things.
Lunging 2 feet to grab a knife or strike/restrain the holder of said knife brings you that much closer to the threat, and now you’ve used force and created potential liability. If it’s possible to move 2 feet away, that’s probably better, especially if you can KEEP moving 2 feet away until you are far out of reach and safe. Congrats- you’ve defended yourself and made it almost impossible to catch a charge for use of force. This “self defense” example defends us not just against the threat- but against the legal potentials for harm that can come after the physical threat..