Yep, it’s the “probably” that creates the ethics conundrum. We won’t know how to improve the process without testing the process, and we cannot ethically create “test” humans like that scene in Alien Resurrection where all the failed Sigourney clones are sitting in jars, suffering and begging for death.
What? In my metaphor, Democrats are the nets made of sometimes poop, and Republicans are the turds. Was that not clear?
Yeah, sure. Gather the guillotine and meet me in the town square.
Look, if you’re scooping turds out of a punch bowl, and the only tool you have is a net that might be made of turds, then you can either keep scooping or you can throw away the whole bowl of punch. You don’t just give up and drink the punch because it’s all the same. One is a turd in the punchbowl. The other is a mechanism for removing the turds, but it’s also probably a turd. Doing something is still doing something, even if the punch is still shit.
There were also the control monkeys, who only had the standard Motaba virus.
Plus, being flung from a cage at highway speeds has been clinically proven to have an agitating effect on monkey dispositions.
Right? Like it’s weird so many people are saying “This isn’t what I voted for.” Yes, it is exactly what you voted for.
The fucked up part is that this bill permits the bypass of existing regulations. Wilderness protections already included a process to receive exemptions for critical infrastructure, including security-related improvements. The new bill simply removes the review process and creates a rubber stamp they can use to do whatever they want under the guise of border security, with zero review, oversight, or accountability for abuses.
And those are just the ones we know about. Thousands of people have been abducted without due process. We don’t have an accurate record of everyone ICE has assaulted or kidnapped.
Like, imagine a baker hired to bake bread. That baker claims he makes the best bread, using a traditional Grimm’s recipe where he grinds up human bones to make bread. And you think that’s a terrible idea, because there’s no source of human bones that would be not horrifying. But everyone wants him to be the baker, so he starts murdering people to grind their bones to make his bread. And you’re horrified because of all the murder and mutilation, but also the bread is terrible. You can’t bake bread from ground up bonemeal. It’s bad bread. But all the people who wanted him to bake are eating it, insisting through gritted teeth “Mmm, sooo good… You’re just a hater. Are you triggered yet? Yum, delicious.” And you want to scream because none of this is normal or moral or even human, but also it’s just poorly done. The bread is all weird and clumpy, and it’s been burnt on the crust and underbaked in the middle. There’s either too much or not enough salt, and none of it is consistent at all. It’s just the absolute worst bread ever made because the baker is incompetent and evil. And he’s transparently stealing money from the register. But because they love the baker, and they know it bothers you, all the people who voted for him are pretending this isn’t a nightmare collapse of society. They keep eating the bread, dying from the lack of nutrition or basic hygiene, and sometimes their loved ones will be murdered to become the bones that make the bread, and suddenly it’s all terribly unfair but they’d still vote for the guy again.
1200 people disappeared at that camp, without charges or due process, they were absucted off the street and sent to a swamp to die.
Germans didn’t want to believe that the Jews were being slaughtered at concentration camps, either, but willful ignorance is not a morally defensible choice.
Who is “y’all” and what is “this”?
For me, I want the war to end with Russia leaving Ukraine the hell alone. I’m not an expert on geopilicital military strategy, but it seems like the people fighting for Ukraine want any intel that helps them repel the invasion force. Striking within Russia’s borders might force Putin to withdraw and defend his own country rather than murdering civilians in another country.
It might not work. It might ratchet up the violence, and it might result in the suffering and death of innocent people. I don’t want that, but I’m not in a position to say that “this” makes that outcome more or less likely.
What is it that you want instead?
I mean, he is an expert on crime.
It’s entirely possible he never went to the island. That doesn’t make Elon Musk a good person, and he hasn’t exactly earned the benefit of doubt.
Just a reminder that this fucker sexually harassed Anita Hill for years.
“I didn’t visit his island” has the same vibes as “I didn’t inhale” as far as denials go.
Of course they are legitimate concerns. Epstein was a warning, they can get anyone anywhere. They got Kirk, and they can get anyone.
He might not have come home.
Sure, but imagine I’m right, and he’s just trying to stir shit up. Wouldn’t he write exactly the same thing? Like if he was actually upset, he’s going to pretend like he doesn’t care. Like with the Epstein stuff.
I could be entirely wrong, though. In the end, doesn’t make much difference.
Was he the one who was a piece of shit? Or was that Crick?