- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2024 11:48
|
|
- OwlFancier
- Aug 22, 2013
-
|
God forbid people maybe believe that someone can be a nuanced and complicated person and still be a murderer.
It's almost like murderers might be people just like us.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 18:09
|
|
- computer parts
- Nov 18, 2010
-
PLEASE CLAP
|
God forbid people maybe believe that someone can be a nuanced and complicated person and still be a murderer.
It's almost like murderers might be people just like us.
Only white ones though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 18:12
|
|
- I AM GRANDO
- Aug 20, 2006
-
|
I think it's more a way of preserving the image of white killers as always being lone wackos motivated by their own particular circumstances. Here this fucker seems to be crossing the threshold into "sensitive soul tragically pushed too far," which is even worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 18:18
|
|
- OwlFancier
- Aug 22, 2013
-
|
It need not be untrue to be a propaganda piece, it simply needs to focus entirely on the good and ignore the bit where he murdered three people for no good reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 18:46
|
|
- Davethulhu
- Aug 12, 2003
-
-
Morbid Hound
|
So, way back in the early 2000s, I was a frequent reader of James Lileks' blog. It was mostly slice-of-life stuff with some interesting retro 40s to 60s ads and cookbooks and the like. Then 9/11 happened and he lost his mind. Not long after, I discovered Something Awful and stopped going.
Recently, the Mall of America (a big mall in Minnesota) was in the news because some Somali terrorists mentioned it in a video. This reminded me of Lileks, because post-9/11 he was terrified that someone was going to fly a plane into the Mall.
In any event, I decided to look him up again and see if he moderated or regretted his nuttiness. Turns out he's a semi-regular contributor to National Review, and also a frequent guest on Hugh Hewitt's show, so the answer to that is a definite no. Poking around his archives though I found this passage,, which I felt was too good not to share. This was written in late January 2003, right after the State of the Union address and a couple months before the Iraq invasion kicked off:
quote:Let's say I'm a 44-year old Iraqi man with a two-year old girl and a wife who worked in the Ministry of Justice and came home every day weeping because someone else had been taken away, I would hear this speech and be filled with piercing fear and incandescent hope and the two emotions would wrestle every day until it was over. When you think about it, a postwar Iraq might actually be safer from WMD than New York City. It’ll be over for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 20:45
|
|
- Gynocentric Regime
- Jun 9, 2010
-
by Cyrano4747
|
So, way back in the early 2000s, I was a frequent reader of James Lileks' blog. It was mostly slice-of-life stuff with some interesting retro 40s to 60s ads and cookbooks and the like. Then 9/11 happened and he lost his mind. Not long after, I discovered Something Awful and stopped going.
Recently, the Mall of America (a big mall in Minnesota) was in the news because some Somali terrorists mentioned it in a video. This reminded me of Lileks, because post-9/11 he was terrified that someone was going to fly a plane into the Mall.
In any event, I decided to look him up again and see if he moderated or regretted his nuttiness. Turns out he's a semi-regular contributor to National Review, and also a frequent guest on Hugh Hewitt's show, so the answer to that is a definite no. Poking around his archives though I found this passage,, which I felt was too good not to share. This was written in late January 2003, right after the State of the Union address and a couple months before the Iraq invasion kicked off:
What is it with Minnesota and funny conservatives?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2015 23:16
|
|
- blackguy32
- Oct 1, 2005
-
Say, do you know how to do the walk?
|
Gamergate is pretty awful, especially if you follow any people involved on twitter such as Anita Sarkeesian.
But I love this article of Zoe Quinn tearing apart the argument about "ethics"
http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/zoe-quinn-gaming-journalism/
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 09:39
|
|
- Doctor Butts
- May 21, 2002
-
|
So, way back in the early 2000s, I was a frequent reader of James Lileks' blog. It was mostly slice-of-life stuff with some interesting retro 40s to 60s ads and cookbooks and the like. Then 9/11 happened and he lost his mind. Not long after, I discovered Something Awful and stopped going.
Yea I loved his stuff when he started but as he went on it got less 'oh gee look at these silly things we used to like' and more 'look at all those stupid people in the past'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2015 19:10
|
|
- A Fancy 400 lbs
- Jul 24, 2008
-
|
Well, at least they're better at keeping them out of power than Wisconsin is
You know you're talking about the state that elected Jesse Ventura as governor, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 21:36
|
|
- Redeye Flight
- Mar 26, 2010
-
God, I'm so tired. What the hell did I post last night?
|
You know you're talking about the state that elected Jesse Ventura as governor, right?
Please don't bring that up. We're all very embarrassed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:51
|
|
- Name Change
- Oct 9, 2005
-
|
John Bolton: If we act now, we can simply destroy them. Then we can vigorously support their political opposition, which is definitely on our side and won't disappear when we bomb the gently caress out of them or anything.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/opinion/to-stop-irans-bomb-bomb-iran.html?ref=opinion
Bonus points for "Israel can do what must be done." Not even Bolton has the balls to spell this out.
quote:FOR years, experts worried that the Middle East would face an uncontrollable nuclear-arms race if Iran ever acquired weapons capability. Given the region’s political, religious and ethnic conflicts, the logic is straightforward.
As in other nuclear proliferation cases like India, Pakistan and North Korea, America and the West were guilty of inattention when they should have been vigilant. But failing to act in the past is no excuse for making the same mistakes now. All presidents enter office facing the cumulative effects of their predecessors’ decisions. But each is responsible for what happens on his watch. President Obama’s approach on Iran has brought a bad situation to the brink of catastrophe.
In theory, comprehensive international sanctions, rigorously enforced and universally adhered to, might have broken the back of Iran’s nuclear program. But the sanctions imposed have not met those criteria. Naturally, Tehran wants to be free of them, but the president’s own director of National Intelligence testified in 2014 that they had not stopped Iran’s progressing its nuclear program. There is now widespread acknowledgment that the rosy 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which judged that Iran’s weapons program was halted in 2003, was an embarrassment, little more than wishful thinking.
Even absent palpable proof, like a nuclear test, Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear weapons has long been evident. Now the arms race has begun: Neighboring countries are moving forward, driven by fears that Mr. Obama’s diplomacy is fostering a nuclear Iran. Saudi Arabia, keystone of the oil-producing monarchies, has long been expected to move first. No way would the Sunni Saudis allow the Shiite Persians to outpace them in the quest for dominance within Islam and Middle Eastern geopolitical hegemony. Because of reports of early Saudi funding, analysts have long believed that Saudi Arabia has an option to obtain nuclear weapons from Pakistan, allowing it to become a nuclear-weapons state overnight. Egypt and Turkey, both with imperial legacies and modern aspirations, and similarly distrustful of Tehran, would be right behind.
Ironically perhaps, Israel’s nuclear weapons have not triggered an arms race. Other states in the region understood — even if they couldn’t admit it publicly — that Israel’s nukes were intended as a deterrent, not as an offensive measure.
Iran is a different story. Extensive progress in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing reveal its ambitions. Saudi, Egyptian and Turkish interests are complex and conflicting, but faced with Iran’s threat, all have concluded that nuclear weapons are essential.
The former Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, said recently, “whatever comes out of these talks, we will want the same.” He added, “if Iran has the ability to enrich uranium to whatever level, it’s not just Saudi Arabia that’s going to ask for that.” Obviously, the Saudis, Turkey and Egypt will not be issuing news releases trumpeting their intentions. But the evidence is accumulating that they have quickened their pace toward developing weapons.
Saudi Arabia has signed nuclear cooperation agreements with South Korea, China, France and Argentina, aiming to build a total of 16 reactors by 2030. The Saudis also just hosted meetings with the leaders of Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey; nuclear matters were almost certainly on the agenda. Pakistan could quickly supply nuclear weapons or technology to Egypt, Turkey and others. Or, for the right price, North Korea might sell behind the backs of its Iranian friends.
The Obama administration’s increasingly frantic efforts to reach agreement with Iran have spurred demands for ever-greater concessions from Washington. Successive administrations, Democratic and Republican, worked hard, with varying success, to forestall or terminate efforts to acquire nuclear weapons by states as diverse as South Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, Brazil and South Africa. Even where civilian nuclear reactors were tolerated, access to the rest of the nuclear fuel cycle was typically avoided. Everyone involved understood why.
This gold standard is now everywhere in jeopardy because the president’s policy is empowering Iran. Whether diplomacy and sanctions would ever have worked against the hard-liners running Iran is unlikely. But abandoning the red line on weapons-grade fuel drawn originally by the Europeans in 2003, and by the United Nations Security Council in several resolutions, has alarmed the Middle East and effectively handed a permit to Iran’s nuclear weapons establishment.
The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure. The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.
Rendering inoperable the Natanz and Fordow uranium-enrichment installations and the Arak heavy-water production facility and reactor would be priorities. So, too, would be the little-noticed but critical uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan. An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.
Mr. Obama’s fascination with an Iranian nuclear deal always had an air of unreality. But by ignoring the strategic implications of such diplomacy, these talks have triggered a potential wave of nuclear programs. The president’s biggest legacy could be a thoroughly nuclear-weaponized Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 13:57
|
|
- I AM GRANDO
- Aug 20, 2006
-
|
What would that guy do if a white person criticized his attitude toward race?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 19:31
|
|
- Nenonen
- Oct 22, 2009
-
Mulla on aina kolkyt donaa taskussa
|
By the way, if anyone is looking for crazy/terrible right-wing editorials but don't feel like wading through the waters of conservative websites, then this is the blog for you:
http://alicublog.blogspot.com/
Okay, checked that blog's latest posting, I can't get over that there is a man named David French who wrote this:
quote: As I read the news and watched the coverage, I felt stricken for the victims, fury at the attacker, and more than a little personal conviction. Not because of any silly notions of collective white guilt or other nonsense peddled by the radical Left — and certainly not because I’ve long opposed the Left’s gun-control efforts and supported the individual, inherent right of self-defense, including the right to keep and bear arms. No, I felt conviction because of the numerous times that I’ve walked out of my house unarmed and thus largely incapable of defending myself — and, more important, others — from violent acts. Perhaps I chose not to wear the right kind of clothing — pants that allow me to conceal my carry pistol, for example. Perhaps it crossed my mind to carry, but I thought, “I’m not going anywhere dangerous.” The men and women at the Emanuel Bible study probably didn’t think they were in any danger, either...
If the unthinkable happens, and I watch as my family, my friends, or even members of my community I’ve never met are hurt or killed when I could have prevented it by carrying the weapon I’ve trained myself to use, I could never forgive myself...
Don’t just carry. Don’t just go to the state-mandated training, buy a weapon, and then forget about it. Unless you train yourself to use it, that weapon would probably be less useful to you in an emergency than a similarly weighted rock. At least you’d instinctively know to throw the rock. Practice with a handgun until you can take it from a position of safe carry to active engagement within seconds. Then practice that again until you’ve beaten your best time. Then practice again. And realize that practice isn’t a burden but a joy...
You'd think he'd changed his name to David Freedom at one point???
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:54
|
|
- I AM GRANDO
- Aug 20, 2006
-
|
A sensible worldview: live every moment in absolute fear of being shot dead because only then are you truly safe and therefore free.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:54
|
|
- woke wedding drone
- Jun 1, 2003
-
by exmarx
-
Fun Shoe
|
What would that guy do if a white person criticized his attitude toward race?
Well now he's got Rachel Dolezal to fall back on, so probably he'd make some snide remark about her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 21:58
|
|
- Ytlaya
- Nov 13, 2005
-
|
Okay, checked that blog's latest posting, I can't get over that there is a man named David French who wrote this:
You'd think he'd changed his name to David Freedom at one point???
Someone should give this guy an analogy of a person always walking around with a full first-aid kit, because you never know when someone around you or yourself might be injured (something that is a hell of a lot more likely than having your life threatened by a criminal).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 19:48
|
|
- VideoTapir
- Oct 18, 2005
-
He'll tire eventually.
|
I'll bet that guy's been upset about the presence of nonwhite people in a white country, town, space, or entertainment medium, tho.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2015 01:37
|
|
- Obligatory Handle
- Feb 27, 2004
-
by Lowtax
|
From the Cincinnati Enquirer. Marijuana addicts = violent schizophrenic baby killers.
I have been closely following all of the articles about legalization of marijuana and how the group, ResponsibleOhio, was started. I have only read one letter to the editor from a concerned Ohio resident about the increased probability of mental illness developing among users.According to the National Institutes of Health, "Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit drug worldwide, with approximately 5 millions of daily users worldwide.
Emerging evidence supports a number of associations between cannabis and psychosis/psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia."A program from National Geographic stated an actual percentage of those who will experience psychosis: 50 percent of all marijuana users will experience psychosis.
Ohio, are you ready to be "Responsible" for this? In the last year alone, three Cincinnati-area residents reported to be marijuana users committed heinous crimes: 1) Andrea Bradley severely tortured and killed her 2-year-old daughter, Glenara Bates; 2) De'asia Watkins beheaded her 3-month old daughter, Jayniah; 3) Larry Tipton II killed girlfriend Rebecca Eldemire (Miami U. student). How many more do you want to add to the list?Please consider the pros and cons of recreational marijuana carefully. This is serious. Do we really need an entirely new group of the population experiencing this?
This will negatively affect everyone – law enforcement, health care, families and innocent children.While there is still research to be done, medicinal oil like Charlotte's Web (with the high-inducing THC removed) has reduced or eliminated seizures in several children. I know a few children personally that have been helped by this oil. If you are going to be Responsible, Ohio, be responsible for this: Helping people not hurting them. Thank you for your consideration in this life-saving matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 14:51
|
|
- Ohthehugemanatee
- Oct 18, 2005
-
|
Won't someone please think of us poor white people??
I'm not so sure about poor white people, but someone in the Star Tribune was thinking of rich white people if it makes you feel any better:
David Lebedoff in 'Turns out my father knew best' posted:One of the reasons for the wild popularity of the television series “Mad Men” was that it portrayed in sublime detail the brief period in which America was fun for many people and not quite so politically correct. We can shrug at the cigarettes, booze and sexism; we know better now. Some secretly may covet one or another of those vices, but the remarkable sight is of prosperous white people enjoying themselves without fear of scorn.
All ages have some form of conventional wisdom, but in the “Mad Men” era, a lot of life was laissez-faire. The young president of the United States shared some of their diversions, but the public didn’t need to know. What a time that was.
Predictably the rest of the article quickly veers off into good old days worship and how his dad was really clever to ignore everything he ever heard that he disagreed with. Sadly he doesn't say anything else quite so jaw-droppingly terrible.
I don't get how Mad Men goes so far over peoples heads. It's as much an endorsement of its era as Breaking Bad is a fun story of two drug dealers who make it big. Yes if you ignore the sexism, the insecurity, the miserable people and the grim reality behind the facade it looks great but uh... do you just turn off the show after the intro?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 17:23
|
|
- letthereberock
- Sep 4, 2004
-
|
Ohio, are you ready to be "Responsible" for this? In the last year alone, three Cincinnati-area residents reported to be marijuana users committed heinous crimes: 1) Andrea Bradley severely tortured and killed her 2-year-old daughter, Glenara Bates; 2) De'asia Watkins beheaded her 3-month old daughter, Jayniah; 3) Larry Tipton II killed girlfriend Rebecca Eldemire (Miami U. student). How many more do you want to add to the list?Please consider the pros and cons of recreational marijuana carefully. This is serious. Do we really need an entirely new group of the population experiencing this?
Writing editorials or just debating politics in general must be so easy and fun for people with absolutely no concept of causality. "I am against legalizing marijuana - I hear that Ted Bundy once smoked marijuana, therefore smoking marijuana turns you into a serial killer. I don't want more serial killers around, do you? Why is there even a debate about this?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2015 18:26
|
|
- VideoTapir
- Oct 18, 2005
-
He'll tire eventually.
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=results
It's a shame this thread petered out. I don't think there's any more appropriate place for this, so here we go:
Someone has a modest proposal regarding lions. It's written by a couple of philosophy students, so the possibility of it being a troll is pretty high, but god drat what a troll if it is one.
http://qz.com/497675/to-truly-end-animal-suffering-the-most-ethical-choice-is-to-kill-all-predators-especially-cecil-the-lion/
quote:To truly end animal suffering, the most ethical choice is to kill wild predators (especially Cecil the lion)
Mercy killing? (AP Photo/Kathy Willens-File)
Share
Written by
Amanda MacAskill
William MacAskill
September 09, 2015
The story of Walter Palmer, a Minnesotan dentist who hunted and killed Cecil the lion, rocked the internet—and indeed the world—this summer. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk has even called for Cecil’s killer—who went back to work this week despite a crowd of lingering protesters—to be hanged.
Most animal activists seem to agree that even if we commit more egregious harms to animals domestically, the killing of Cecil remains a barbaric act, and that his death is nothing less than a tragedy. But what if the killing of Cecil the lion was actually an act of mercy that would save countless other lives?
As long-term vegetarians who abstain from meat for ethical reasons, we are both supporters of animal activists who seek to improve the lives of animals. So you might expect us to agree with activists like Ingrid Newkirk that the killing of Cecil is a terrible thing. But we don’t. In fact, we think it may be the case that animal rights activists should support the killing of predatory animals like Cecil.
Animal rights activists should support the killing of predatory animals like Cecil. Animal activists have different opinions about how we ought to respond to animal suffering. For example, some activists believe that we should aim to increase the welfare of animals within the meat and dairy industries by improving the conditions in which they live and eventually die (welfarism), while others believe that we should aim to abolish these industries altogether (abolitionism). But most animal activists agree that we should try to protect animals from unnecessary suffering and death, and that it is wrong for humans to cause such unnecessary suffering.
The animal welfare conversation has generally centered on human-caused animal suffering and human-caused animal deaths. But we’re not the only ones who hunt and kill. It is true (and terrible) that an estimated 20 billion chickens were born into captivity in 2013 alone, many of whom live in terrible conditions in factory farms. But there are estimated 60 billion land birds and over 100 billion land mammals living in the wild. Who is working to alleviate their suffering? As the philosopher Jeff McMahan writes: “Wherever there is animal life, predators are stalking, chasing, capturing, killing, and devouring their prey. Agonized suffering and violent death are ubiquitous and continuous.”
If we believe that we should protect animals from unnecessary suffering and death than it seems that we should be focusing much more on reducing the non-human causes of animal suffering and death that occur almost continuously in the wild. Which brings us back to Cecil. Just as we may be able to alleviate the suffering caused to wild animals by disease or natural disasters, we might also be able to do something about predation and the often-brutal competition that permeates the natural food chain.
If animal activists care about wild animals as much as they care about domestic animals, then these are two main causes of suffering and death among wild animals that they should try to prevent.
Predatory animals cause many animal deaths in the wild. Lions hunt their own prey and scavenge kills that have died naturally or that have been killed by other predators like hyenas. Although male lions will leave the bulk of the hunting to females, they create greater demand for prey kills from both female lions and the predators from whom they scavenge. A male lion requires about 15 pounds of meat per day and the kill rate for lions is estimated at anywhere between 10 and 47 kills per year. These kills can be difficult to watch, but they are an inevitable outcome of allowing predators to continue to live.
By killing predators, we can save the lives of the many prey animals like wildebeests, zebras, and buffalos in the local area that would otherwise be killed in order to keep the animals at the top of the food chain alive. And there’s no reason for considering the lives of predators like lions to be more important than the lives of their prey.
We understand that this will be a controversial claim. Animal activists might respond that understanding the plight of prey animals doesn’t justify the killing of their predators. Consider an analogous case involving humans. Suppose we know that John is a serial killer who is intent on murdering several people over the next year. When John’s neighbor discovers this, she shoots John, thereby saving the lives of all of his future victims. Her action is analogous to those of Cecil’s killer, but we would still not applaud her action. After all, she should have turned John into the police rather than killing him.
The same is true in Cecil’s case: even if we care about preventing predators from killing other animals, it is surely better to do this humanely than to kill them. For example, we could take the predators out of their natural environment and give them good lives that don’t involve hunting prey. But even if we accept that killing Cecil isn’t the best thing that Walter Palmer could have done, the question remains: was it a good thing to do? Was it better to kill Cecil than to have left things as they were? We would presumably think that it would be better for John’s neighbor to shoot John in order to save the lives of his victims than to do nothing and let his victims die, even if we think it would be even better for her to call the police and report John. Similarly, it may be better for us to kill predators like Cecil than to do nothing, even if it would be even better if we could humanely remove predators from the environment without killing them.
There’s no reason for considering the lives of predators like lions to be more important than the lives of their prey. Another key objection to the argument we have given here however, is that prey animals like the wildebeest may themselves have terrible lives—lives that are worse than death—even if we take predators out of the equation. Besides having predators to fear, prey animals are also subject to disease, parasites, and starvation. And if prey animals have lives that are not worth living, then we may be doing them a favor by leaving predators in the environment that can end their life sooner, rather than waiting for them to die from natural causes.
We accept that prey animals may indeed have miserable lives, and that if they do then Cecil’s death is actually worse than people have previously thought, as his death condemns his potential prey to potentially many more years of suffering than had he killed them. But the claim that prey animals have miserable lives leads animal activists to surprising conclusions of a different sort. If wild animals don’t have lives worth living then we should try to either improve their lives to the point that they are worth living, or we should prevent such animals from existing in the future. In other words, we should focus on reducing disease, parasites and starvation among wild animals, or on reducing their population size.
So the options that seem to be on the table for the animal activist are: reduce the number of predators to improve the lives of prey, or increase the number of predators to put prey out of their misery. Both possibilities involve large-scale intervention in ecosystems. Such large-scale interventions could have unforeseen negative consequences, since ecosystems are complex things. For example, the introduction of rabbits and cane toads in Australia, where both species had no natural predators, led to both species becoming major pests that have had major impacts on Australian ecology. Since the welfare and survival of animals (including ourselves) is dependent on these ecosystems, we should be very careful before undertaking any sort of large-scale intervention that may have unforeseen consequences.
We should focus on reducing disease, parasites and starvation among wild animals, or on reducing their population size. Just because something is difficult doesn’t mean it can’t be done. In this case, interventions could be justified following a rigorous risk analysis. But these issues can be set aside for the purposes of this thought experiment. The cases that we are considering don’t involve a large-scale intervention. They involve the killing of individual predators. Individual hunts are unlikely to have knock-on effects on the ecosystem of the region. Nor are they likely to lead to increased death of prey through starvation, since it is highly unlikely that killing individual predators will lead to prey overpopulation.
A final objection to the view outlined here is that we should not prevent animals from engaging in hunting behavior because such behavior is “natural.” And we can’t blame animals for behaving in accordance with their nature. (Of course, hunting behavior in humans is also natural, but people have not offered this as a defense of Cecil’s killer.) But a behavior may be natural—and may even be required for survival—without thereby being good. If a species emerged that had to viciously torture humans in order to survive, we would not conclude that their torture of humans is morally OK. It’s also important to emphasize that we are not making any moral judgments about predator behavior. Predators don’t have the kind of cognitive awareness that is probably required for moral responsibility. But we don’t need to think that actions have been undertaken by morally responsible agents in order to think that we are required to intervene and prevent them from happening. An infant with a handgun is not morally responsible if she accidentally shoots someone, but we are morally required to take the handgun from the infant as soon as we see that she has it. Similarly, we may think that predators are not morally responsible for their actions, but that we are morally required to prevent them from harming local prey populations.
Given the facts, therefore, it seems hard to see why animal welfare advocates would be in such uproar over the killing of Cecil. Walter Palmer killed one animal, but in doing so he saved dozens of others.
We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com.
Someone either possesses or is feigning some spectacular ignorance about wildlife management. If it's the former, they're also making philosophy majors look bad. If the latter they're making them look awesome. I really am not sure if this is satire or not.
VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Sep 11, 2015
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 07:39
|
|
- woke wedding drone
- Jun 1, 2003
-
by exmarx
-
Fun Shoe
|
I'm not so sure about poor white people, but someone in the Star Tribune was thinking of rich white people if it makes you feel any better:
Predictably the rest of the article quickly veers off into good old days worship and how his dad was really clever to ignore everything he ever heard that he disagreed with. Sadly he doesn't say anything else quite so jaw-droppingly terrible.
I don't get how Mad Men goes so far over peoples heads. It's as much an endorsement of its era as Breaking Bad is a fun story of two drug dealers who make it big. Yes if you ignore the sexism, the insecurity, the miserable people and the grim reality behind the facade it looks great but uh... do you just turn off the show after the intro?
I like the idea that nowadays, white men are afraid to enjoy themselves without "fear of scorn."
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 07:51
|
|
- VideoTapir
- Oct 18, 2005
-
He'll tire eventually.
|
There are millions who view Scarface as a role model.
Protagonist = hero. That's all I learned in English Lit class. Don't go telling me that fiction gets more complex than He-Man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 08:00
|
|
- Nathilus
- Apr 4, 2002
-
I alone can see through the media bias.
I'm also stupid on a scale that can only be measured in Reddits.
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=results
It's a shame this thread petered out. I don't think there's any more appropriate place for this, so here we go:
Someone has a modest proposal regarding lions.
At a guess I'd say its just an extremely modest proposal. If they are serious, then I'd suggest they need to kill themselves for the same goal of minimizing suffering. Along with every other form of life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2015 08:30
|
|
- FilthyImp
- Sep 30, 2002
-
Anime Deviant
|
The Reagantennial is approaching. Why does everyone not remember how awesome and Leadery Saint Reagan was?!
Forbes posted:http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/02/06/reagan-mythology-obscures-and-denies-the-real-reagan-accomplishments/
["As we celebrate the Reagan Centennial, it seems an appropriate day to contemplate the good, the bad and the many myths that have risen throughout the years as our 40th president continues his march toward political sainthood.
As I grow older and pursue a more objective approach to the Reagan years, I find my own respect growing for the man whom I once, many years ago, held in such low esteem. What I have come to appreciate are not the myths that today’s conservatives cherish, but the actual steps taken by Reagan that showed leadership, wisdom, clear thinking and guts – many of which are denied by President Reagan’s legion of myth makers.
Put another way, Reagan was far more of a progressive by today’s standards than modern day conservatives could ever bring themselves to believe. So much is this the case, I often wonder if the underlying purpose of the Reagan mythology is to create a storyline designed to obscure the man’s true progressive tendencies and accomplishments.
Earlier this week, Newt Gingrich, appearing on Greta Van Susteren’s show, engaged in a critique of President Obama’s handling of the Egyptian crisis while suggesting that President Reagan presented the model to be followed when resolving these type of problems.
VAN SUSTEREN: How is President Obama doing on Egypt?
NEWT GINGRICH: I don’t think they have a clue. I think it is very frightening to watch this administration.
VAN SUSTEREN: Would anybody?
NEWT GINGRICH: Reagan would have. Reagan would have had — Reagan would have thought about and studied radical Islam and Reagan would have had a strategy and would have pursued it. He didn’t do that in the 80s some are going to want to complain for a practical reason. Reagan had one foreign policy goal in the 1980s, defeat the Soviet Union. He didn’t divert himself because he wanted to defeat the Soviet Union.
Newt is wrong. Terrorism was very much on the mind of the Reagan Administration. Indeed, Gingrich’s statements reveal how little those who share Gingrich’s own approach to fighting terrorism actually understand about Reagan’s stance on the issue.
It was President Reagan who ultimately went along with Democratic congressional leaders in deciding to pass on the opportunity to retaliate when Muslim extremists bombed our military barracks in Lebanon, killing hundreds of American Marines. Rather than launch a military attack, as many in Reagan’s administration saw as the preferred course of action, the president elected to withdraw our Marines from the base in order to protect them.
Anybody believe that fits the mold of current conservative thinking?
Much additional evidence exists to reveal how Reagan might have approached issues relating to terrorism today – and they are far closer to current progressive thinking than they are to modern conservative beliefs.
Will Bunch, author of “Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy, ” points out in today’s Washington Post that Reagan aide, Paul Bremmer, argued during the Reagan years that terrorist suspects should be tried in civilian courts. “A major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are – criminals – and to use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law, against them.
Bunch additionally notes that, in 1988, Reagan signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture which stated that torture could be used under “no exceptional circumstances, whatsoever.”
As we know all too well, Mr. Gingrich – and many other Reagan worshippers – are on record as being dead set against civilian trials for terror suspects.
And there is so much more.
Despite Reagan’s status as the patron saint of tax cutting, he really wasn’t the cutter so many would like to believe.
It is true that his 1981 tax cut brought down the marginal rates on the wealthiest Americans from 70% to 50%. That was a bold and important step.
However, in 1982, with the nation mired in recession and the federal deficit growing out of control, Reagan proposed – and got passed- The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, then the largest peacetime tax bump in our nation’s history.
I don’t point this out simply to rub conservative noses in the fact that Reagan would go on to raise taxes every year but two in his eight-year term. I point it out because, unlike today’s conservatives, Reagan had the good sense and leadership skills to do the right thing.
As much as he wanted lower taxes for the nation’s wealthiest, he understood that a recession and an out of control national debt meant that he had to raise their taxes in the interest of the country.
How can it be that the fervent worshippers of the Ronald Reagan legacy – when finding themselves in an even worse recession and facing an even more critical level of national debt – elect to do precisely what President Regan did not do? Rather than raise taxes in response, they continued the Bush tax cuts as the persist in their efforts to create even more tax cuts for the wealthy.
Faced with an out of control deficit – which would rise during Reagan’s time in office from $700 million to $3 trillion – and a serious national recession, Reagan raised taxes on the rich.
The national debt was not the only thing that grew during the Reagan years.
Despite the fantasy clung to by small government extremists of today, and despite Reagan’s suggestion that ‘government is the problem’, the number of federal employees grew from 2.8 million to 3.0 million during the two Reagan terms. While promising that he would get rid of the Departments of Education (some things never change) and Energy, Reagan never put an end to these agencies. Indeed, he even added a new cabinet level agency, the Department of Veteran Affairs. So, yes, the federal government grew during the Reagan years.
As the ceremonies and festivities ensue in celebration of our 40th president, let’s not celebrate the fabrications – let’s celebrate the truth of the Reagan years and try to learn from them. We have much to gain from acknowledging those truths rather than pretending they do not exist.
While the myths created by those who continue to use President Reagan in ways he would neither appreciate nor approve endure, these myths do little but obscure the true successes of Reagan’s approach to the presidency – an approach that would serve us well in many of the problems we currently face.
The Reagan reality is not half bad. Why mess with it by pretending he was something that he was not when there is so much to be gained by following the example of the real Ronald Reagan?" FilthyImp fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Oct 8, 2015
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 18:20
|
|
- OwlFancier
- Aug 22, 2013
-
|
It's surely not a centennial unless until 2088?
Or did Reagan travel back in time and rule the USA during 1918?
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Oct 8, 2015
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 18:58
|
|
- losonti tokash
- Oct 29, 2007
-
I'm so pretty, oh so pretty.
|
It's surely not a centennial unless until 2088?
Or did Reagan travel back in time and rule the USA during 1918?
It's an article from Feb 6, 2011, which is 100 years after he was born.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 19:12
|
|
- joepinetree
- Apr 5, 2012
-
|
Seeing this thread on the front page again reminded me to post one of the worst movie reviews of all time:
The review is about the movie "second mother," a Brazilian film that has been getting some praise recently. The film is ok, a bit too neat, but it is about a live-in maid in Brazil who is visited by her teenage daughter, who in turn serves as a way of highlighting all the ways in which the bosses treat the maid as subhuman. Here's the review:
http://lasvegas.informermg.com/2015/09/02/second-mother-movie-review/
quote:By Victoria Alexander, Film Critic
Las Vegas Informer
It speaks to anyone considering hiring a live-in nanny. Regina Casé is terrific.
Yoselyn Ortega, a 50-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, stabbed to death two children, 6 and 2, in their family’s luxury Upper West Side apartment in 2012. Ortega, who had spent over two years as the children’s nanny, blamed the deaths on the treatment she received by their parents, Kevin and Marina Krim.
Written and directed by Brazilian filmmaker Anna Muylaert, THE SECOND MOTHER is a look at the life of a Sao Paulo live-in nanny, Val (Regina Casé), who has cared for the son of her wealthy employers, Dr. Carlos (Lourenço Mutarelli) and Barbara (Karine Telles), for over 10 years. Val has become closer to Fabinho (Michel Joelsas) than either of his parents. When he is depressed, he sleeps with Val in her tiny room.
Val raised Fabinho, now a teenager, with lavish attention. Val adores him and loves him like a son. Val has dedicated her life to Fabinho and the family’s every need. She is the perfect nanny.
Marina had a blog and spoke lovingly about traveling with the children to the Dominican Republic to stay for several days at the home of Ortega’s sister. The Krims bragged they treated Ortega as a member of the family.
Her own daughter Jessica (Camila Mardila) has been living with her sister for over 10 years. They became estranged and now, after three years of no contact, Jessica wants to come to Sao Paulo and go to college.
The family’s wealth comes from Dr. Carlos family and Dr. Carlos is wasting away bored in his room. It is steely Barbara who has the public profile as a trendsetter. She has severe haircut of an executive who gets things done. She is comfortable in speaking her mind.
The Krim’s paid Ortega $18 an hour to help care for three small children in their luxury apartment. When Ortega complained of money troubles, they offered Ortega an additional five hours a week cleaning and looked around for some additional babysitting work for her.
In Primates of Park Avenue, Wednesday Martin describes what it was like to be an Upper East Side wife in 2004. The right nursery tuition for a toddler ranged from $25,000 to $35,000; play-date tutorials for $400 an hour; one-on-one sessions between toddler and therapist for $150 to $300. “Many of the nannies I knew made $100,000 per year or more and traveled the world by private jet. They had paid vacation, half or all of their health-care coverage paid for, and generous holiday bonuses.”
While a one three-bedroom unit in the Krim’s building was available for $10,000 per month, Ortega tried to sell cheap cosmetics to her neighbors and cooked for others as a way to make more money. Ortega had recently brought her 17-year-old son from the Dominican Republic to live with her in a Bronx apartment. When she could not pay the rent, they moved in with her three sisters in Washington Heights.
Unlike the Krims, Barbara’s relationship with Val is hierarchical. Val knows her place in the family dynamic. She never relaxes or enjoys anything the family has. She has never been in their pool, ate her breakfast as their kitchen table, or ate their special food. Fabinho’s ice cream was only for Fabinho!
Of course Barbara agrees to have Val’s daughter stay awhile preparing for the entrance exam. Val is thrilled to see her lovely daughter but Jessica is appaled that her mother is the house maid and is expected to sleep on the floor on a mattress in her mother’s small room. Getting a tour of the large house, Jessica insists she wants to stay in the guest bedroom. Too shocked to say “no”, Dr. Carlos agrees. Val is mortified.
At first, the family welcomes Jessica but her arrogant behavior and flaunting of the “house rules for the maid’s daughter” causes Barbara to take a closer look at what is going on. Jessica has a sense of entitlement and embarrassed her mother is a maid – who has been paying for her upkeep and bills.
Jessica resents Val leaving her to raise another woman’s child. She casually ignores the “rules” by eating Fabinho’s ice cream, having Barbara make her breakfast and spending time with lonely Dr. Carlos. Val is horrified. She has been an obedient servant and now her daughter is disrupting the smoothly-run household. Val knows Jessica does not respect her employers and she might lose her job. A stern talk from Barbara and Val must let Jessica leave.
While family and friends said Ortega had severe mental problems, the Krims never saw it. Ortega’s actions were horrendous and cannot be explained away. Thankfully, in THE SECOND MOTHER, while the family appreciates Val, they respect decorum of the employer-employee relationship. Even after raising Fabinho, Val would never assume she was part of the family.
Regina Casé is fantastic. Every movement telegraphs her subservient attitude. The entire cast is remarkable, especially Camila Mardila, who understands Jessica’s complexities. Writer-director Anna Muylaert structures everything around the theme of “place”. The house is modern, free of personality and highly functional. We stay in the kitchen with Val, peeking at the family eating dinner.
My favorite scene is when Val and the maid look on in horror as Jessica easily has lunch with Dr. Carlos. Val is hysterical.
Upper East Side mommies must take a good look at THE SECOND MOTHER. If you can’t support a woman’s family, do not hire her as your children’s caretaker. Don’t be seduced into thinking you can have it all. Sometimes you have made a choice: it’s either the Birkin crocodile bag or the nanny’s yearly salary.
Why, yes, that is certainly the point of the film: don't hire a live in nanny because she might kill you, or, that which is almost as bad, have a daughter who sits down at the kitchen table to eat breakfast (the arrogance!) At least Val understands the importance of Employer-Employee decorum, which prevents this from becoming a story of multiple homicides.
joepinetree fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Oct 8, 2015
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 19:33
|
|
- VideoTapir
- Oct 18, 2005
-
He'll tire eventually.
|
That there is some extra-strength guillotine lubricant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 04:25
|
|
- soylent_green
- Nov 6, 2004
-
We're not going to Guam, are we?
|
You know you're talking about the state that elected Jesse Ventura as governor, right?
Jesse Ventura was a conservative? Who knew?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 19:54
|
|
- woke wedding drone
- Jun 1, 2003
-
by exmarx
-
Fun Shoe
|
I suppose the whole problem is that they are not hunting beaver.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:01
|
|
- MaxxBot
- Oct 6, 2003
-
you could have clapped
you should have clapped!!
|
The "cowboys or lumberjacks" part makes it seem like the writer is saying that these men really want to gently caress other men on the DL. Luckily there are plenty of opportunities for that now days!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 00:23
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2024 11:48
|
|
- Bates
- Jun 15, 2006
-
|
The "cowboys or lumberjacks" part makes it seem like the writer is saying that these men really want to gently caress other men on the DL. Luckily there are plenty of opportunities for that now days!
Nah men have an innate need to be manly men like in the good ole days and we shouldn't force them to be sissy involuntary celibate white collars or they will obviously lash out and murder everyone. How else are we supposed to burn off all that testoterone? We have to adapt the workplace! Put a few rail spikes and a sledge by the water cooler and set aside half an hour a day for them to lasso the interns in the parking lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 11:31
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 17:52
