For real, fuck ICE. My fully booked evening train got cancelled after we had already boarded, the next two that day were fully booked as well, I had to find an airbnb with a toddler and travel the next day, and they replaced just half of the ticket price because I cOuLD HaVe tAKeN AnOtHer TrAiN
On the other hand their child merch is cute af
The funny thing is as long as you have a small kid with you - doesn’t even have to be a baby, just stroller-age - you can bring anything. I’m not even talking about a sealed bottle of water - which, to me, would kind of make sense with the regulations - but all of the sudden your normal 500ml bottle with water, juice, or whatever, is fine. A thermo can with boiling hot water inside? Sure, no problem.
That’s an interesting take, wanna tell me more? (I’m sick right now and my brain cells don’t function well enough to think for myself but that’s unironically an interesting take)
I just wanted one funny meme before bed not nightmare fuel but here we go
So, jokes aside, people eat all kinds of different things, so legit question here: is there any traditional recipe/dish based on another species’ semen? Is there any culture who eats that?
I know in Switzerland there is a traditional dish of bull’s testicles (which I know from a way too long advertisement on youtube that showed the recipe in promotion of the region, don’t remember the region but that ad has been branded into my brain). And that you can also prepare utter. But I am asking specifically about cum here. Just out of curiosity of course…
I don’t think this is what you mean, but it sounds a lot like you want to replace one ethno state with another ethno state by pushing out all the Jews that have migrated to Israel during the last 80ish years as well as their descendants.
I doubt this is what you would want, but I just want to point this out, because it sounds dangerous and might be taken like this.
My guess is that you, just as most people, would not want the “migrants” displaced, but not in power and especially not suppressing the rights and targeting the people who lived there and are still living there. We all basically want them to be a big happy secular family who don’t care about each other’s background and see the person. (Which is the big problem because this family hates one another.) Yes, a lot of Israel’s population has come to Israel somewhat unlawfully, but again: the mess has already been created. Telling a 17 year old whose grandparents migrated Israel from Hungary to please fuck off and go back to Hungary would be not more rightful than displacing Palestinians back in 1948.
So, first of all - I basically agree with you and will be playing devil’s advocate a little bit here. But some things I want to point out:
The majority of Jews condemn Israel. Israelis do no represent Jews and thinking so is antisemitic.
Definitely not all Jews or Israelis support the Israeli government as it is. But over 40% of Jews in the world live in Israel, which makes it not the majority, but a very big chunk of Jews. While they might condemn the current government, it is difficult to argue that they condemn the idea of Israel when they are living there. However, a second point follows right from here:
Israelis are oppressor and settlers who are living in stolen Palestinian land. Israel is an illegitimate settler colony that the UN has condemned since its inception and creation
Yes. But also it was created a long time ago. Not too long ago, but long enough so that there are generations of people who have been born into this state as innocent people.
Basically, I dislike the idea of how Israel was created and claiming some birthright to return to a land. Depending on how far you want to go you can always find different peoples living in any region. No one would reasonably argue that we should evacuate Manhattan and return it to Native Americans. And this analogy works in both ways: evacuate Israel to give the land back to Palestine as well as evacuating the region of Palestinians to create Israel. Shlomo Sand once said he is a post zionist because the mess has already been created, maybe that is the take I most agree with, although really, there is no fair or “right” solution to this. Which is why it makes this conflict so complicated and frustrating.
Well what do you expect he’s been eating steak only for years
This reminds me of that time Jordan Peterson went crazy about entwined snakes looking like DNA
This is how the Nutty Putty Cave became the Nutty Putty Grave.
Why would you want to get rid of squirrels?
Man that sounds pretty great ngl
Kinda same
Well we went down a road that I think we need to track back.
Poor people committing “necessary” crimes is not the focus and should not be. The whole idea of necessary crimes that should not be punished is awful - we should focus on building a society where people don’t end up in a position where they have to steal (etc.) to survive. If we are already thinking of how to better jurisdiction I’d argue we have space to assume we can also better their situation in general. We want to deter them from crimes the most, yes, but not by scaring them with the consequences of being caught - we want to deter them by making them unnecessary. No person should be poor, period.
I think what this comes down to is the question of fines themselves. It has almost something catholic about it. You buy yourself out of punishment. I’d argue that this concept is flawed in itself, no matter how you adjust it.
My guess is that this is what the post was supposed to say. Money in itself isn’t too much of a fair concept, or a just one. But punishment, law enforcement, etc, should be, despite taking place in a capitalist society.
What it comes down to would probably be something like social service (my guess). Is the crime committed violent and does the perpetrator pose a severe security risk to society? Then a correction facility that focuses on healing, mental and physical health, rehabilitation and reintegration into society should be the choice. The crime was something that could also be fined? Cut the fine, make it a social service. Picking up trash from sideroads, cleaning public toilets. This will benefit the public/society and no one can buy their way out of it.
It doesnt make a difference if the person who committed the crime has more or less money
Of course it does. A poor person might find themselves in a situation where they have to steal groceries or other necessities for pure survival. If I were poor and needed diapers and there was no governmental support program available I would also steal them. Or formula or whatever. A rich person can afford all of that. If they steal groceries it is for the thrill, not out of necessity.
Also, note that really bad crimes (murder for example) are not fined. In that sense it does not matter what the financial status of the perpetrator is. Although filthy rich people can sometimes even buy their way out of these crimes.
Great idea but still unfair. It is the same as a high salaried person being able to afford quitting their job and take a couple of months to look for another or go on parental leave. They can afford it because they have savings. A day fine will also hit the poorest the most, because they don’t have savings to afford paying such a fine.
And as @brisk pointed out, wealth isn’t income
That’s true, we need fossil fuels for so many things besides transportation. At the same time, we are simply running out of fossil fuels. Even if we ignore the impact on the environment completely, there will be a point in the not too distant future when there will simply be nothing left to pump.
So what I am wondering is, even if one thinks man made climate change is a hoax or something similar, shouldn’t the first and foremost thing everyone agrees on be to still spare those scarce resources? For things we really (“really”) need to make from oil?
The first thing that comes to mind (maybe since I work in the lab) is medical equipment. You don’t really want to have to wash and reuse things like catheters, do you? I am not sure if bioplastics (i.e., still plastics, but made from plants) would be an alternative here once we run out but I sincerely hope so.
Prices will go up, in any case, and it will be a painful transistion. But now we are at a somewhat luxurious point where we can still make this transistion somewhat controlled and “smoothly”. If we continue to treat oil as a never ending resource and then do a surprised pikachu face once there is nothing left this will be much much worse, won’t they?
Just to be clear, I brought the toddler, they didn’t provide the toddler