The misstep was embarrassing for Johnson because the requirement to bring photo ID is a stipulation of the Elections Act which he introduced in 2022 while still in Downing
It's not the onion, because you can't make this shit up.
As someone who comes from a country where we do require photo ID for voting, not requiring one feels absurd, so I asked the same question. Apparently in the US, there is a part of the population that doesn't normally get photo ID and that part is mostly poor people and minorities and photo ID laws are used as means of disenfranchisement, similar to having the voting days during business days (when many people can't come to vote) or having voting stations far away in an area with limited public transport options.
Where I live in Finland, the police will actually grant you a temporary photo ID only for voting if you don't have one, although most people have passports. There are early voting stations in basically every post office for a week and the main voting day is always on a Sunday. No excuse to miss voting.
I've only missed one voting during my life, at a time when I was living in another country and there was no consulate in the part of the country I was in. Nowadays there's also the option of mail-in voting when outside the country, I don't know if it wasn't a thing back then or I just didn't know.
That's not to say I didn't want some improvements in our system: I'd like to see ranked choice voting or something similar here, there are some smaller parties I've been voting and it seems they seldom have a chance.
We've never really needed to use photo ID in England and never had problems with fraud. You can only visit one polling station one time, the system worked fine. The Tories changed it to deliberately disenfranchise the poor who are less likely to have these types of ID, and they did this because they're scum.
I feel like there's a simple solution: Government issues free photo IDs to everyone, you need to pay for it if you destroy/lose it while it's still valid.
There was an ID card system in the works in the UK a few years ago, but it was scrapped. There was a lot of opposition to it ok the grounds of civil liberties and privacy.
There’s a lot of wariness about a “paper’s please” society in the country, there hasn’t been a national ID system since just after WW2. Driver’s licenses and passports are used a sort of substitute, but even the UK drivers license doesn’t have to be carried to actually drive.
The proposed ID card system was also attached to an identity database system that was considered to have a lot of features creep and be too invasive.
A free, simple ID card system would probably make a lot of sense (the existing drivers license system could be repurposed/expanded for it), but there’s just a lot of uneasiness about it among the British for better or worse.
That's where you guys draw the line? With automated facial recognition vans, CCTV everywhere, among other things, the UK is certainly not a country that comes to mind when I think "civil liberties and privacy".
To be fair when they say recently they mean about 20 years ago. It was the Blair government that were looking to do this when I was at school in the early 2000s.
I'd like to see ranked choice voting or something similar here, there are some smaller parties I've been voting and it seems they seldom have a chance.
Ranked choice voting would make sense maybe in the presidential elections, but otherwise all elections in Finland are D'Hondt method proportional representation, with open lists. Ranked choice would bring nearly zero benefits, and lots of complication to the vote counting process.
In Europe, people have an ID since they are born. And, you need it to go to your neighboring countries which are never far away. Not having an ID is quite rare. You even have countries delivering it for free.
The US (mostly the trending fascist party) does whatever possible to make sure the least amount of people possible get the opportunity to vote and for the people who do vote, make sure their vote does not count as much as possible. It also varies per state.
not giving out a national identification card, but then requiring an identification card to vote
reducing the amount of voting centers every year in areas like major cities that vote more left so that the people would have to travel an hour or more to vote and without a car, it is almost impossible
Voting is not a public holiday and many states do not allow voting by mail. Combined with the before point removes many poor people's ability to vote at all
there is a right wing effort to remove as many left leaning votors as possible from registration for minor errors
Armed party members at elections recently to intimidate voters, especially if they "look like the left demographic"
the "electoral college" which can just decide to not cast the vote that actually decides elections for the candidates that the citizens voted for
It is really batshit crazy over there. It seems like the right gets away with all of this crazy stuff and then when the left is back in power, almost nothing is done to change it back with regards to voting.
It's bad in the USA because they have an aversion to all forms of registration.
It's unnecessary in most of Europe because they already have functional registries.
I don't know enough about UK election procedures to figure out why they thought it was necessary. It's probably not, but it's easy points for someone wanting to signal that they're doing something against the fictional illegal immigrants who are supposedly voting en masse whenever the right wing politicians don't get their way..
That is...not why it's bad in the USA. It's bad in the USA because it's used as a tool for voter suppression historically against black and brown people.
But sure, we're all afraid of registration, when you have to do that to vote either way 🙄
it's easy points for someone wanting to signal that they're doing something against the fictional illegal immigrants who are supposedly voting en masse whenever the right wing politicians don't get their way..
Voting ID requirements have not been universally seen as a good thing in the UK, there’s been a lot of opposition to it.
There is no national ID in the UK, instead there is a patchwork of secondary ID systems such as passports, drivers licenses, travel cards etc. In most cases they have a monetary cost or are not universally available.
It’s been seen as an attempt at voter suppression as many poorer British people may not have suitable ID. The rules also reject many forms of ID commonly held by younger voters, while accepting a wider range of ID held be older voters. There is supposed to be a free voting ID available but implantation has been left to local councils and has been criticised as hard to access.
Seriously? They made voting ID a council issue? Northern Ireland has had voting ID for a while and it's dead easy to get one, only thing I needed to pay was postage on a 2nd class stamp. Pretty good as well as it basically makes a free photographic ID available
If Blunkett had got his way we'd all have ID cards. Though if that had happened the Tories wouldn't have introduced ID cards for elections as it wouldn't have given them advantage.
Your National Insurance number is as close as it gets. Similar to Social security number in America. Receive it at 16 and it doesn't change except in cases of fraud. A record of all taxe and National Insurance contributions you make. Goes towards pension.
I read that. I also read the first sentence in the parent's question. He was asking why there was a difference between the US and the UK.
The comment I responded to was saying that not everyone does see it as a good thing, but that doesn't mean that the fact that there is no national ID explains a difference.
He was asking why there was a difference between the US and the UK.
The comment you were replying to was saying there isn't a difference between the US and UK. It's a divisive issue in both with some people pushing for it and some thinking it's a bad thing.
It isn't. There was no evidence of voting fraud but it does reduce the number of people who vote, and specifically older people who vote conservative are more likely to have photo ID via bus passes, etc, while younger voters in poor areas are likely to have none.
You can apply for ID free, but that requires effort that a lot of people can't be bothered with, especially when they constantly being told that "both sides are as bad as each other".
It's a very USA specific thing and people in other countries are often surprised this is such a big deal, because in many countries it's a non-issue. Mostly because having an ID is so ubiquitous in many places. People are often surprised that many Americans don't possess ID.
There's a lot of stuff about the US elections that's surprising to e.g. Europeans. Why do so many not have ID? Why do you so often have to wait in line for hours? Why do some areas apparently have not enough polling places? Why do I need to register to vote, sometimes repeatedly? Why is it so hard to get time off work to go vote? A lot of these seem like basic requirements for a functioning democracy.
The US election system has a bunch of historical quirks. And also to my eyes there seems to be a conscious effort from some government officials to make people not go vote.
It probably works fine in countries where the government issues everyone with ID cards. But in countries where you don't have to have ID cards (UK, USA etc) it just acts as a form of voter suppression.
The Tories who were in power pushed it based on right wing conspiracy theories about immigrants because vulnerable populations least likely to have government documentation vote overwhelmingly labour.
It didn't really work though because old people also often let their passport and driving license lapse, department of work and pensions also already uses heavy handed documentation requirements as a way of fucking over people with mental health issues, criminal records, poverty etc who are less likely to have ID so the amount of people with ID in those groups is uncharacteristically high.
So yeah it's a bit of a nothing really, reduces voters on all sides but mostly the left and doesn't really seem to do much else.
One of the rights many mottos is "if it hurts everyone terribly, but hurts the left even a little bit more, then it's a good plan and we should do it".
The thing is, in the US it's used to suppress voting because getting a valid ID that's recognized requires things like having a home with a permanent address, or the ability to drive, things that lower income households or the homeless are unable to provide.
In America, it's intended to disenfranchise the minority class.
And people forget how much of a PITA it is to get. Waiting in line for 4 hours to get an ID is something I'll do once a decade for my driver's license because I need it to drive and I drive several hours a day.
For people who don't have car, they may not consider the inconvenience worth it just to have the privilege of waiting a few more hours to vote.
"Motor Voter" laws that allowed people to register to vote while renewing their license were designed to make it harder for the poor to vote by making them go through a different process than drivers. Voter ID requirements took it to the next level by requiring them to ALSO go get a license to vote.
Can't speak for the UK/EU, but in the US, there's a long history of state governments trying to disenfranchise minority voters, especially in the South where slavery was legal for longer. This was accomplished in the past with so-called "literacy tests," and more recently by closing certain polling booths or understaffing them. Since millions of Americans don't have IDs that fit strict standards, many see these voter-ID laws as another form of disenfranchisement.
Yep, our library has a 3D printer and they'll make anything you want for a very low cost, like a couple dollars. I've never tried but I want to. What should I ask them to make? Any suggestions?
Having built a number of Repraps, "nearly everything" is highly exaggerated. I have seen 3D printers with an almost entirely printed frame, but using off the shelf T slot rails is a lot more time and cost effective.
It is currently not possible to print the control board, wiring, sensors, hot end, motors, heaters, bearings, slides and rails necessary for a 3D printer. Some of the mechanical parts and a lot of the bracketry that holds the frame together can be 3D printed.
Ultra specific storage cubbies for your favorite 5 tools. Label tags. Cabinet door knobs. Print in place toy cars with rolling wheels and doors that open. Compliant mechanisms. A coin sorting device. If they can print flexible things, phone cases.
Do not expect anything 3d printed to be food safe.
It helped me to know that checking out items helps the library.
I always thought of it as being a consumer of library resources, but the fact that the books/movies/library of things items are being checked out helps them prove that their services are useful to the community.
Look, I know the way the left has been handling immigration has you upset, but could you please take a closer look at the absolute freaks you're electing today?
I mean, just take a good look at the United States, circa 2017 through 2020. Did we look like electing an absolute freak worked out for us? Did it fix our own immigration problems? Did it make electing your own Donald Trumps look like a good idea?
It's truly bizarre. Every couple of decades or so, either the United States or significant chunks of Europe decide, "What the hell, let's give the right-wingers another chance, they say they'll fix immigration," and then we end up cutting funding for services and giving tax cuts to the rich. They pull this shit every goddamn time, and we keep falling for the bait-and-switch.
When people feel ignored in a democratic country, they begin to feel like the democracy they live in is a sham or that democracy itself doesn't work.
Votes like this aren't necessarily about "we need a different direction" and more about desperation and/or anger. They want to show the elites of their country that they still have the power, they want to cost them something for treating the population like it's there to be harvested from, they want to shake up the status quo at all cost.
They want to prove to themselves that their vote still matters.
Letting it get to this point is really bad governance. Once you get here, either they win, or they don't. And of they don't, most of the people who support them have their suspicions confirmed, they don't live in a democracy, they voted and didn't get what they want, again. This creates a division that is difficult to come back from.
These right wing parties need migration. Their whole existence depends on there being immigrants to blame so actually closing the borders and "sending them home" is the worst move they can make politically speaking.
Correct, the next step in the strategy is to blame the immigration on any random external entity (cf Brexit). Eventually this may devolve into full blown war, genocides, etc etc.
It is a sham. An arrogant 3rd term fool imported a population increase of 3 percent in 18 months during a housing crisis and can't figure out why people hate him. I successfully lowered wages across tje whole country after devaluing the currency intentionally. This is not a mystery why people wants see him at a minimum out of office immediately. I think you all know what a lot actually think should be done with him.
Well, that's dismissive. You don't think that these people are reacting to genuine concerns they have? Not even some of them, some of their concerns?
In an environment where nobody controls the information, people will lie. If democracy doesn't work when information flows freely, doesn't that mean democracy doesn't work?
It makes me want to mock the EU considering how much, deserved, shit the US gets. But this is just depressing. I would much prefer the US to be mocked as we get our shit, hopefully, together. Not fucking join us.
The recent success of the European far right is precisely because they've revised their image to get rid of the freakshow aspects. The days when you could dismiss these people just by calling them "absolute freaks" are over.
I'd actually give the Catholic Church a few points in the "Good" column if they made Carlin a saint. He could be the patron saint of jesters and fools.
If you look a little closer, it’s not. Educated European people do not want to copy American culture, or at the very least try to pick out the good stuff. They are those who criticise the US for the bad stuff, though.
Our dummies, deplorables, low class people on the other hand have eaten up American culture hook line and sinker, they are culturally in sync with basic bitch Americans and their lifestyle and hobbies (minus guns because of laws)…music, movies, food, holiday destinations, political views, clothing, hobbies is all copied from the US. American soft power works wonders on soft European brains. These are the people who don’t criticise the US but the US shouldn’t take that as a compliment, because they’re morons.
So there is a huge class divide in Europe between people who want to turn Europe in the US, end those who think that’s not a good idea. No hypocrisy.
Talking to reporters, Haley was unapologetic, criticising Joe Biden’s administration for temporarily withholding weapons as a means of discouraging an Israeli attack on the southern Gaza city of Rafah, and aiming barbs at the international criminal court (ICC) – which is seeking Netanyahu’s arrest – and the international court of justice (ICJ), which is considering charges of genocide against Israel.
“What America needs to understand is if Israel’s fighting our enemies, how can we not help them,” said Haley, whose missile message also carried the words “America loves Israel”.
“The sure way to not help Israel is to withhold weapons. The sure way to not help Israel is to praise the ICC, the ICJ or any of those that are condemning Israel instead of condemning what happens.
“America needs to do whatever Israel needs and stop telling them how to fight this war. You are either a friend or not a friend.”
Propagandists are so funny. It’s like…. You make shit up that can’t be proven, verified, or is otherwise even remotely realistic, and then you pretend it’s real to the point that you’re willing to argue it online with total strangers.
I'm not defending Biden, but the view that Trump would be any less prepared to keep sending Israel weapons is utterly baseless. He wouldn't even pretend to care about the Palestinians, for one thing.
Done. Then short sighted lemmy users will go “well Biden would’ve done it too” as countless more people die because folks let perfect be the enemy of stop our backslide into fascism and wanton death.
Nah.. while you're dead, they'll just use your last address of residency and full name to cast your vote for you. You can enjoy staying in the grave-slumber.
Yeah, those stupid kids should just realize that one constant in America is that we kill or enable the killing of children. They should just accept that children will be killed in their name and get over themselves like us grown ups.
Piracy doesn't take money from artists, just ask Cory Doctorow, a person making their living as a writer while uploading the torrents of his novels himself.
Corporate consolidation is what kills the artists. The studios make less movies per year, so the a list actors go to television and take the roles Rob Morrow used to get.
That's the neat part: you don't have to, because copyright was never a property right to begin with.
First, not only are ideas not property, they're pretty much exactly the opposite of it. I'll let Thomas Jefferson himself explain this one:
It has been pretended by some (and in England especially) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions; & not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. but while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural, and even an hereditary right to inventions. it is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. by an universal law indeed, whatever, whether fixed or moveable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property, for the moment, of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation the property goes with it. stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. it would be curious then if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. if nature has made any one thing less susceptible, than all others, of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an Idea; which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the reciever cannot dispossess himself of it. it’s peculiar character too is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. he who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction himself, without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me.
Second, a copyright isn't a right, either; it's a privilege. Consider the Copyright Clause: it is one of the enumerated powers of Congress, giving Congress the authority to issue temporary monopolies to creators, for the sole and express purpose "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." Note that that's a power, not an obligation, and the purpose is not "because the creator is entitled to it" or anything similar to that.
Besides, think of it this way: if copyright were actually a property right, the fact that it expires would be unconstitutional under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. But it does expire, so it clearly isn't a property right.
I think the more nuanced take is that we should be making "piracy" legal by expanding and protecting fair use and rights to make personal copies. There are lots of things that are called piracy now that really shouldn't be. Making "piracy" legal still leaves plenty of room for artists to get paid.
Most people would be fine with this in the case of a home user duplicating one or two copies for his kids to watch and as backups. But we have seen whenever a rule permits something, someone will work out the MAXIMUM way in which they can abuse it for profit. Give them an inch, and they take a mile.
Ideally, we could have laws that are really finely built to be specific to that first scenario. But I honestly don't know how you write those.
Thanks for sharing! I wish they had the date of publishing listed for this article. I get the feeling it was written 15 years ago, well before streaming music services existed. Would love to see them update this based on the latest technologies and services.
Also depends on the country. It isn't everywhere. Non-commercial file-sharing is legal in a number of European countries and I'm sure elsewhere.
It could be taken as a sign of the health of the democracy's function and technically literacy of the population. In a society of tech heads with a highly functional democracy, it would be DRM measures that would be illegal.....
I guess you don't think people should have st. bernards or great danes? I mean, I'm not suggesting people keep wolves or lions as pets, but this bully dog fearmongering is out of control. IMHO, it's not the breed, it's the training and owner.
The term "pit bull" literally refers to a type of dog that has a history of fighting in pits. It's in their name. They are a despicable breed that people should stop breeding. You're so close to understanding...
They are being human, they want to protect their fellow humans from a violent dog breed that is disproportionately responsible for owner and family deaths.
IMHO, it's not the breed, it's the training and owner.
Your humble opinion notwithstanding, Bully dogs are demonstrably more dangerous than other breeds of dogs. It's not some irrational fear, these dogs make up 66% of all fatal dog attacks. Pick any deceased dog attack victim, and it was a Bully or a Rottweiler that killed them.
Training is important and can make a difference in outcomes, but the data overwhelmingly points to aggression and lethality between different dog breeds being a matter of nature more than nurture, and that Bully dogs are on the far end of both spectrums leading to the worst outcomes.
This entire article, which I have seen before, strawmans the issue by pretending that a ban on breeding and adoption is supposed to instantly solve fatal dog bite issues, and that short-term data from a failed small-scale direct-enforcement program (throwing the cops at the problem) is some sort of proof that restrictions don't work.
The reality is that banning the breeding and adoption of pit bulls would result in a long term reduction in the breed. You can even grandfather existing pit bull owners out of the ban and avoid direct enforcement against people's pets, because you only need 12-14 years before the majority of pitbulls in the world were born after the ban, and at that point you can just enforce the law when illegal dogs are found.
If one breed is responsible for 66% of all fatal attacks, and you significantly decrease the number of dogs of that breed, there will be fewer fatal dog attacks. A ban absolutely would work, it just won't feel good to condemn unwanted pit bulls to euthanasia so that other breeds can be prioritized for adoption.
And when there is a fatal dog attack by a banned breed, we can hit the owner with murder charges since someone died in the commission of a crime.
if Todd really cared about people, he'd reduce harm in a way that would actually help; persecuting a particular breed of dogs because their owners don't spay/neuter and train them is asinine.
OK, but you can’t train a dog to not attack a person correct?
uh, I can't parse this word salad, it's double negative pie
???
My dogs have never attacked anyone. I have a staffy/pit mix. live in the US. it's one of the most gentle and kindhearted dogs I've ever had; she's a meat-missile but is more gentle with the kids than my dalmation (passed) or hound dog.
Most dogs don't attack people. The owners should be held accountable for their shitty stewardship of their animal. And anyone who trains animals to fight should be stoned in public, but that's just my opinion.
People, overwhelmingly, kill way more people than pit bulls.
Most dogs don't attack people but what happens when they do? What would happen if your dog attacked you or someone else at random? Would you feel responsible? You can't say that it will never happen because you can't know that and also it's what everybody says until it does.
I'm not sure where you're going with your last statement but it's irrelevant. We aren't talking about people here.
I can say that it will never happen because I am in control of my own action. That question makes no sense. Anyway, it's clear you are biased so what you say doesn't mean anything until you can reasonably defend your position which you have yet to do.
If your breed requires special training to not maul you or others to death, then that just proves the point of the breed being dangerous and that it should be outlawed. But please, continue to make some more bullshit excuses.
If your breed requires special training to not maul you or others to death,
where is this indicated?
My brother/sister in dogs: 30,000ish years ago, some fucking wolf/dingo/mongrel-mutt threw their lot in with ours. We have, mutually, benefitted enormously. I love dogs and trust a lot more of them than I do humans to do the right thing. This isn't developed anecdotally, it's a lifetime of dogs as part of our family, and operating around working dogs in the military. They deserve our respect, and training is one part of any dog's life that humans need to learn. Most training isn't for the dog, it's for the family members.
I'd recommend anyone with any dog go through training, whether a specific program or simply to acclimate the animal to your house (where and when we go outside and who's food is who's etc.,) but also to train them to react and behave in awkward situations. I've had toddlers lurch across the room, grab my dog's faces and and poke at their eyes - and the toddlers got licked.
Special training? YOU SHOULD TRAIN YOUR ANIMALS PERIOD. you wouldn't trust a cat to behave around a toddler, a dog, a parrot (nearly lost a finger meeting a white parrot once!), hells man/ma'am...
My brother in buddy, they weren't putting words in your mouth. They were using outside factors to answer a question you made.
Want to talk down to someone? How about doing it to someone without having to make erroneous assumptions and jumping the defensive gun? Be adult enough to not belittle people like this chief.
I agree in the sense that some dog breeds aren't necessary and are actively unhealthy for the animal and the breed should be allowed to die out removing the ability for people to be owners of those breeds, and therefore ownerless
Yes? I am not sure I understand what is making you upset. I am not saying kill all the pitbulls, I am saying stop dog eugenics and let dogs just be dogs and love the animal that comes out. If that means that we stop having access to purebred (inbred) Pugs, so be it. Mutts are just as good doggos.
Idk why you think I'm upset. I'm more shocked than anything.
I would think most people tend to support conservation of different animals and whatnot, except for maybe mosquitoes (and even then I'd be hesitant). It's also blowing my mind that you're heavily upvoted. I had no idea some of y'all thought this way.
That said, I'm just going to assume I don't fully understand what you're saying since it seems so batshit crazy to me. It's clear this isn't really an honest, open dialogue anyway, and that's totally fine
Not the OP, but let me step in. Dog breeds are something we have created as humans, they're not wild species that need to be preserved and don't have any effect on ecosystems.
Dog breeding is largely negative at this point as most breeds have outlived their original use and are now seen as designer pets. We continue to breed them as there is continued demand, but quite often these breeds are so inbred that they have genetic health issues. We also oversupply and don't fix/neuter enough, meaning there are always unwanted dogs without homes.
I love dogs, but all of mine have been rescues and I would have no problem with the vast majority of breeds being phased out. There are still some niche cases where dogs are actually used for their breed's purpose (dog sled, search/rescue, hunting, etc) but no, I don't think a chihuahua or a pug should exist and would not be sad if breeders stopped producing more.
Thanks for sharing your POV. It's definitely the first time I've heard something that radical about dogs, which are basically the most beloved living thing in the US, but I can somewhat understand where you're coming from.
I'd definitely support making it more difficult to own a dog, but mostly because many of the dog owners I've met are borderline abusive to their pets (I'm mainly thinking of neglect here). I don't think I could ever support a ban on entire breeds. That's where it starts to seem crazy to me. Make it a felony to own a dog that bites someone or something but don't make it a felony to simply own the dog. We don't even have such laws for people that own guns or swords and surely those lead to more deaths/injuries than dogs.
I feel I should clarify that I don't hold this position because dogs are dangerous or think it should be harder to have a dog. I hold it because I think our breeding programs are creating a lot of animal suffering.
From puppy mills where dogs are kept in horrible conditions, to overproduction of animals so that there aren't enough homes, to propagating breeds that can barely breath so that they have an "adorable" face. Dog breeding is exploitative and re-enforces that dogs are simply a commodity.
I'm not sure a law making it more difficult to own a dog would have the effect you intend, as there are already too many dogs in need of homes. I think a more palatable middle ground to elimination would be regulation of breeders to ensure that they are not producing more dogs than can be homed.
Dogs aren't put down for their meat, so the discussion of the acceptability of putting dogs down is not based on their meat.
Thus, the point is about humans simply killing animals.
This isn't about the human imposed utility, it's about if it's fine for humans to decide what animals live and die. Humans don't need beef to live, there are other foods, so humans make a human centric choice to kill cows.
Since humans are deciding what animals.live, based purely on human wants, why would dogs be free of that assessment?
Cow farms supply food for humans. I'm not saying that's the most ethical thing in the world, but it is done. Would dogs serve the same purpose? They would produce less, lower quality meat per head.
There's a difference between that and policies that discourage breeding, etc.
I don't see many people advocating to outright kill dogs. There are a ton of pits in every shelter and yet people still run backyard breeding operations or tell everyone to get a pit. The breed would be better served if we told people they were more of an advanced breed that need the right kind of owners and environment.
I noticed my guinea pigs have never tried to murder me. Granted in a home invasion they are pretty useless. Unless I like throw their squeaky bodies at said invader or overpower him and make him drink from the water dish as vengeance.
Dishonest statement. That's like saying "Any ceiling fan can decapitate you". Technically true, but so extraordinarily unlikely for most breeds that you should be more worried about car crashes if you fear for your life...
Animals are still animals. It isn't dishonest to say that we should respect them and their space through understanding and recognizing their behavior. Don't allow your love for an animal cloud the basic judgment that every animal may have its moment. Don't be afraid, just be aware.
I was about to say, you would need a LOT of force for a fan blade to cut through your neck meat all the way through. A domestic ceiling fan capable of decapitating someone would be completely excessive.
Any breed can produce a dog that is prone to snap.
Some breeds are much more likely to do so.
Of those, only a few are both prone to snap and large enough to hurt you.
Oh those, pit bills are far and away the most aggressive.
That said, most pitbulls really are fine. For being the most dangerous breed, there are millions of pitbulls, and a few thousand incidents over a few years.
Why do people go out of their way to defend Pitbulls? This is a breed created by us, to hunt, kill, bite and never let go. They should not be used at pets. There are literarily thousands of good gentle dogs looking for homes, we don't need to defend Pitbulls or keep breeding them.
I have a head canon now about your username origin that you, at least once in your life, had to face a horribly distempered ceiling fan, but just don't remember it because of the capitation.
This one time I was dealing with an exhaust system that split to two separate paths. The blowers were so powerful that if one was on it could move the other backwards which caused the VFD on the other one to fault. It was pretty cool.
If a tiny dig nips at you most people laugh it off and you get a break in the skin at most. Happens all the time and no one blinks. If that happens and your dog is 90lbs you can die. Definitely not "extraordinarily unlikely"...just inconsequential for most breeds/sizes.
While some of them have expressed desire for beachfront houses in Gaza, I think the parent was referring to lebensraum. You may also consider whether there’s any similarities to a potential Final Solution to the Palestinian Question. Maybe instead of shipping the Palestinians to Madagascar they’ll ship them to Egypt or Jordan or wherever (for now they’ve concentrated them in camps around Rafah).
But remember, per the IHRA definition of antisemitism, discussing similarities between the acts of Nazis and the acts of Israel is antisemitic.
Imagine going through the soul crushing hell of being a committed and earnest election worker in a failing 21st century democracy and then the clouds part and in one shining moment you can tell boris you have no idea who he is, but he'll need ID.
Like seriously consider it. Do you say "on your bike son"? Can you resist flipping him off? The joy he gave that one person might be the single act of good in johnson's entire life.
I wonder how Boris feels about the current crop of carbrained Conservative candidates, given that supporting bikes was one of the few good things he did as mayor.
He's LITERALLY the reason Tory MP's are both fucking useless, or leaving/quitting in droves. When he gutted the party for not backing his Brexit vote, he got rid of lots of established conservative politicians, replacing many with populists.
The Conservative party doesn't have many actual conservatives in it any more. Many feel that they've been forced out, and even those looking to join feel that they're just a right-wing party on the tails of Reform.
It's one of the reasons I'm so excited for a GE. It'll likely result in a Labour landslide, but it'll also potentially be the biggest decimation of the Tories since Thatcher, probably more so because she was still ultimately a Conservative. If they can't root out the populists, the party is basically dead.
Serious about him being better than the current crop on this very specific issue? Yes. Other than that, he's a piece of trash and a hack of a politician, so I don't disagree with you on that point.
Although frankly I'd be happy if conservatism was buried altogether, and not just "populist" conservatism. Both forms are incredibly harmful to the poor and the disadvantaged in general.
That’s a big part of the Boris Johnson myth. The “Boris bike” system in London was actually created by his Labour predecessor Ken Livingstone. The system officially opened shortly after Boris became mayor, who then took the credit for it.
The guy does ride a bike, but not as much as other’s coattails.
I've seen Boris "expansion of the london cycling network" up close and personal the few times I've decided to go for really long cycles away from London zones 1, 2 and 3 - the cycling "network" out there is basically made up of tiny blue signs with a white stylized cyclist symbol every half a mile or so along the side of the road and nothing else (not even paint on the road, just near invisible signs), but that was enough for him to claim he had added a huge number of miles to the London cycling network.
Boris "achivements" are invariably just traditional posh-boy lying: in a very strict sense not a lie, but using words ("cycling network") that leads others to understand one thing (actually usuable, properly marked "cycling lanes" that make it safer to cycle) which is completelly different from the reality (little signs on the side of the road that do not add up to a cycling lane or are even easilly spotted by drivers).
I'm sure some digital piracy involves stealing. Someone has to have taken some floppy disk software from a store and walked out without paying for it, then made pirated copies of that disk
When record companies make a fuss about the danger of “piracy”, they’re not talking about violent attacks on shipping. What they complain about is the sharing of copies of music, an activity in which millions of people participate in a spirit of cooperation. The term “piracy” is used by record companies to demonize sharing and cooperation by equating them to kidnaping, murder and theft.
Making an exception for one organisation, pressured by politicians, would be harmful. BBC has the following policy about neutral reporting:
We don't use loaded words like "evil" or "cowardly". We don't talk about "terrorists". And we're not the only ones to follow this line. Some of the world's most respected news organisations have exactly the same policy
I love listening to researchers talk about places like Ur and Karahan Tepe and all the things we know about in between.
What I don't love is the very clear tendency to believe that people 10,000 years ago had the mental capacity of a frog.
No, I don't think the pit-like dwellings that don't have roofs were proof they were savages who lived under the open sky, I think in the TEN THOUSAND YEARS SINCE THEN the roof disintegrated. It's not a hard concept to put something over your head to stay out of the rain.
It IS however, hard to make a roof out of mud unless you know where to get special mud and how to cook it. They would have to use branches, leaves and long grasses to keep rain off, which definitely wouldn't survive 10 millennia.
So DID they have roofs? No idea, but trying to point at lack of roofs as "proof" of anything is kind of dumb.
Respect for the ones that straight up say "we don't know but it's speculated that..." though
Also it's disgusting to me how many times I've seen "because the people who found the artifact thought it was heretical/sacreligious/proves their religion wrong they destroyed most of it"
On the last part, you can see Jesuit exorcism markings on Tiwanaku and Inka statues. They tried to tear down temples too, but couldn’t figure out how to dismantle the foundations and first meter and a half off walls. So they used those to build European style dwellings on top of it.
The smallest of the three pyramids at Giza has a giant gash down the side because some Muslims tried to tear it down because it was from another religion and Islam is founded primarily on hatred and violence.
On a cultural television channel from Mexico, there was a weekly recurring host panel of five or six academics in different fields, all with their PhDs in literature, linguistics, history, political science, etc. La Dichosa Palabra (The Blessed Word) was the name of the show.
Anyway, one of the panelists always seemed to trace the etymology of every word to the name of such-and-such goddess from antiquity.
One or two times, ok sure, you get dazzled by the erudition. But when it happens over and over and over again with any word no matter how seemingly trivial, it all acquires a strong whiff of confirmation bias bullshit with nobody to call him out on it.
Israel literally told Gazans to go to Rafah to be safe. They said it was a safe zone.
And the IDF was operating elsewhere, not entering Rafah at the time.
Now they're supposed to leave Rafah.
Yes, that's how it works. It's like how sometimes during road construction, the construction crew might route you into a different traffic lane. Doesn't mean that lane will remain safe to drive on forever.
You might ask where Israel thinks Gazans are supposed to go. The answer is- nowhere. They're supposed to die.
Now this is just plain false, since it doesn't look like you actually bothered reading any details about it. Israel did in fact tell them where to go.
Terrorist group Hamas is shooting rockets from there, so of course Israel isn't going to ignore it completely. If Hamas stopped hiding behind civilians, the entire area would have been left alone.
Why is it kill counts? Because over 13,000 children have been killed in this war. I suppose you'll claim all 13,000 of them were Hamas soldiers. Even the babies.
Sure, put words in my mouth. You've yet to answer why you're justifying rockets fired at Israeli civilians just because they're mostly being stopped, while condemning rockets fired at Hamas.
Oh very easily. I said Hamas is shooting rockets out of there, and your immediate reaction is "so what IDF killed more people than Hamas, so it's fine"
You're admitting to being on the wrong side without realizing it. IDF has been the instigator committing what the rest of us call terror attacks on civilians for decades and you are incapable of acknowledging that makes them bad guys.
You're also incapable of acknowledging that both sides have civilians which needs protection.
Because you only think one group of civilians are human.
Oh right, instigators with holy leaders that say murdering Jews will get you to heaven, and government officials that pay your family using international funds if you go and kill Jews. Oh wait.
You're also incapable of acknowledging that both sides have civilians which needs protection.
Sure they need protection. One government does all they can to protect their civilians, the other stripped them of resources and instead choose to go attacking others using those same resources needed for life.
So you're ignoring that much of the Israeli government says they want to destroy everything, wipe out the entire people, saying that not even the children are innocent, etc?
Neither government protects civilians.
Hamas don't care at all.
Israel knew about the attack in advance but didn't care to protect their own. They also don't give a shit about Palestinian civilians. You're actively lying if you claim Israel cares about civilian safety.
Quoting a couple extremist politicians and claiming is the entire government is like saying the entire US government is subservient to Russia just because Trump sucks Putin's dick.
Hell, some of the Arab politicians in the Israeli government might give you quotes on quite the opposite of the narrative you're driving.
For over 100 years zionists have been terrorizing and committing genocide there. They killed or pushed out the Muslims, they disenfranchised the Christians until they left. They’re currently clamping down on Jewish people who don’t believe in Zionism.
They have always pushed. Every treaty, every agreement. Every legal attempt to stop the violence has been ignored, or discarded under paper thin or faulty pretenses. Terror is often the last resort of a people who have no other options. (Unless western nations give you billions of dollar in weapons and force other nations to recognize your presence, then you can call it statecraft!)
For zionists and for Israel, the goal has always been to paint the land red with non-believer blood and to destroy every bit of culture that isn’t ‘theirs.’
That’s why they bomb mosques and universities. That’s why they bomb infrastructure. That’s why the West Bank has been split into tiny enclaves. They’re choking the life out of the land so they can plant the seeds of their hollow society on barren soil.
That's great fiction you're writing there. Too bad you show no actual understanding of the region. It's almost as if you get your info from outlets peddling anti-Israel hate, since their governments failed to wipe it and all the people in it off the map repeatedly.
Nah, he's got to go, but the amount of misinformation about anything related to Israel is absolutely ridiculous. Especially in places like lemmy, where you have 3-5 people flooding the whole place with propaganda that's then lapped up by people who get all their news from lemmy posts.
Misinformation like multiple Israeli newspapers quoting Israeli ministers who spoke in public and checking it against other public information which you can look up
You haven't even offered any counter information. You're just accusing people of lying or not researching when they're the ones pulling out actual graphs, figures, and historical facts.
How did you know?!? I have to admit, my beliefs were really hard to come by. I almost didn’t have them!
I read Exodus when I was 13 and I believed it. A few years later, a history teacher challenged me to write a research paper over Israel for my IB history class, so in spring of 2002, I had to work so hard to find anti-Israel propaganda. I didn’t really find any in news media, but I went to the school library, and those people are absolute radicals!
They had books from the 1960’s that discussed Jewish settlers forming militias and attacking “moslem” civilians and burning their family farms. It totally blew my mind that Ben Gurion coordinated terror attacks on British officials in the region, so Britain would withdraw and let the Zionists massacre Palestinians - which they did within weeks of Britain formally withdrawing from Palestine in 1948.
Finding all those anti-Israel accounts of things they actually did was a lot of work!
Yet you’ve offered no comment that wasn’t surface level. When pressed, you fell back on insinuating others were uninformed or intellectually lazy. Claims you failed to substantiate.
Your comments lack substance. Your positions lack support. You fail to engage intellectually, and the embarrassment you feel at being outclassed is palpable and plainly visible.
You are naked and shameful.
I never said Hamas was not in Rafah. In fact that's the opposite of what I said. I did say it was designated a safe zone. Now they're moving the safe zone to a new area and the people with it.
Extremely honorable of Hamas to fire 350 meters away from the nearest populated area. Difficult to find an empty place within such a densely populated area.
Also great targeted attack hitting only israeli Nazi soldiers and no civilians.
Extremely glad to see Hamas follow international law so well.
Are you saying that there's anything wrong with this very targeted attack from Hamas, against a base of Genocidal Nazis, which was not launched from a civilian area, creating zero civilian casualties and only military casualties?
Hamas did exactly what you asked of them here. What is your problem with it?
Yes, that's how it works. It's like how sometimes during road construction, the construction crew might route you into a different traffic lane. Doesn't mean that lane will remain safe to drive on forever.
That’s a bad analogy. The construction crew direct you to a safe place while they repair the rest of the road. There’s nothing being repaired in Gaza. It’s just being systematically destroyed.
Or claims to. I am not sure that he's a true believer so much as an authoritarian who wants to hold onto power and escape justice by pulling the hatred/religious extremism lever that helped him get where he is (he literally marched calling for Rabin's death prior to the assassination).
theguardian.com
Top