If someone goes “won’t anyone give me a gun so I can shoot this child in the head” and person A says “sure thing” and person B says “Sure thing. Also, black lives matter, slava Ukraine”.
You wouldn’t say person B was actually a force for good unless you think Hitler was a force for good because of his anti-smoking campaigns and animals rights advocacy.
My point is you wouldn’t call either a “tourniquet party” when they helped in the genocide as tourniquet implies they were only trying to stop it.
I don’t even disagree with the position you have that minimizing genocide is abhorrent. However, by talking about “what is related or not” I personally feel like society is spraying blood from the femoral artery and there’s the “tourniquet party” and the “shoot people in the femoral artery” party and you’re like “FUCK THE TOURNIQUET PARTY, they abetted genocide! I’m out!”. Or “Because of their apparent support for genocide, I will vote for the cautery and surgical foam party, even if they HAPPEN to be a 9 hour drive away.”
It’s incredibly jarring that you’d call people who abetted a genocide the “tourniquet party”
Because they don’t actually care about people who suffered. They just want to put up a museum with a big list of names so they can go “look how evil communism is. They’re just the same as nazis but with a different coat of paint.”
I saw a comment the other day saying that an .ml called them a nazi and then that same .ml replied with a picture of the comment they had made dehumanising Russians.
Both comments got removed.
Damn bro pulled up with the receipts and everything.
Even if paradoxically well paid workers would be better as they’d have more money to spend on things, billionares only focus on what immediately creates profits and that means paying their workers as low a wage as possible. When homelessness exists it means you HAVE to work to survive. You either take the job that pays you far less than the work is worth or you’re left on the streets.
Hurr durr credit score up 100 points.
Your first link is some guy’s website misrepresenting what peta’s actual stance on pets is. I already linked to peta’s website why they explain the problem is with manufacturing pets. Because there is such a demand for cute pets there’s an incentive to produce as many as possible and that leds to puppy mills where animals are forced into baby producing factories all while stray dogs get put down because they can’t find a home. They explain this on their website which I linked in the previous comment.
Peta doesn’t have a problem with the concept of having a pet, the problem is how such a reality exists. If people have a demand for pets then that means there needs to be a supply for pets. This is what that quote about the vice president meant. She simply doesn’t envision a world where pets can be manufactured in any ethical way. I do but I also don’t care if she thinks that because what she and peta stand for is treating animals ethically and that’s a good thing.
PETA started a campaign that Milk causes autism based on a couple of week studies, which they’ve since removed from the record
I can’t look at the campaign anymore because they’ve removed it but I found this article which had quotes from their website where it shows they mentioned that more research was needed and that one of the studies only had like 20 kids in it. Of course the media ran with headlines like “Oh peta said milk causes autism!” When they didn’t. They used the autism panic at the time and the “got milk” ad which existed to create a narrative that milk was a necessary part of a healthy diet to shift to a discussion about why we think milk is needed for a healthy lifestyle when the milk industry pumps cows full of hormones and shit that wind up in milk, not to mention the fact that cow milk is obviously for cows whereas human milk is for humans. Milk serves a role in mammals to quickly grow their offspring and yet humans don’t just continue drinking milk but we also drink milk from other animals. They go over all this on their website: https://www.peta.org/features/peta-ad-cows-dairy-products-disease/
I do take issue with how they framed autism with a frowny face as that normalises the notion that autism is a bad thing and I’m glad it’s been taken down. But at the end of the day peta is a charty for treating animals ethically. The way our society treats animals is so evil that holocaust survivors, the event we treat as the ultimate evil, draw parallels to it. There is such an urgency to put an end to this cruelty that I honestly don’t give a fuck if such a charity employs the “any publicity is good publicity” method which sometimes results in campaigns that look too goofy or sometimes go a bit to far.
This is yet another example of anti-peta misinformation.
Peta has high kill rates in their shelters because they have a no turn away policy. They will take any animal into their shelter and unfortunately many animals typically the older less cute ones are harder to find homes for and rather than keep them locked up in cages for the rest of their lives they settle for the less cruel option which is putting down the animals that aren’t going to find a loving home.
No-kill shelters have a trick up their sleeve where they look good on paper but in reality they turn away animals that aren’t likely to be adopted or even send animals that aren’t likely to get adopted to peta where they are then put down. In other words peta aren’t uniquely evil and bad at their job, the system funnels more animals into their hands because the alternative is leaving animals on the streets or locked up in cages for the rest of their lives.
Yes, that’s the bad reason I’ve been repeatedly debunking over all the flaws inherent to it and that you’re somehow entrenched in thinking is a good point?
No you haven’t you’ve just said “yes and this is one of those structures” You have to actually explain why it’s necessary.
(And dude you’ve brought Xi into this when I was never talking about China - I get you like them real hard but I’m not discussing them?)
At this point you’re just trolling. This thread began with China as an example of a dictatorship which lead into the discussion about term limits as the main reason for that. I’m not going to keep feeding the troll. Blocked.
Oh boy if comparisons of our treatment of animals to the way we treated victims of the holocaust upset you then wait until you hear about the first guy to do it. Let’s just say he had some first hand experience…
The animal industry uses up a hell of a lot more water than AI. And the water usage from AI mostly comes from the efforts to produce that electricity which in this case typically means fossil fuels. These issues would be solved if we were just using renewable energy sources.
They aren’t against the concept of having pets themselves they just don’t like that pets are specifically bred for domestication when millions of pets are put down in shelters because they couldn’t find homes.
https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/
And sheep do get hurt being shared because the industry focuses on the end result of as many fleeces as fast as possible rather than the well being of the animals not to mention the fact they have to be shared or else they overheat because we bred them into wool producing machines.
https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/wool-industry/
Peta very much are what they say they are. There’s just a lot of smear campaigns at them because “haha these crazy vegoons say they’re against animal cruelty but they actually kill heaps of animals themselves” is a narrative that drives engagement.
What about the UK and Australia?
Your entire argument hinges on it just not being necessary, but you’ve never provided a reason beyond “well what if they’re doing a good job”?
Right that is the reason.
You’ve a great case for why we do need a variety of structures to check one person obtaining too much power, but you’re arguing against term limits because “what if one person happens to be really good at their job?”
Those structures are still there. You haven’t given a reason why term limits are also one of those necessary structures.
You’re not engaging with the answer here, which has been repeatedly given (arguably by marx) but I’ll happily reiterate it in more plain language: “no one person is so good at their job that they should be unwilling to step down from power”.
But that’s the thing. He CAN step down. That’s what I’ve been saying. He got into his position from the assembly who voted him in. If he starts being shit at his job the same assembly that voted him in will vote him out.
Nobody is so unique that an equally competent person cannot be found - but many people are so corrupt that they will remain in power as long as possible unless there are hard checks to prevent them from doing so.
You’re assuming that being in power is the problem when the problem is abusing power. Xi can’t do literally whatever they hell he wants. He can’t pass the “give me the power to do literally whatever I want” law and if he for whatever reason tried to be a dick he would be replaced.
Term limits aren’t necessary. We don’t have term limits for anything else. If someone is doing a good job doing whatever that means they should keep doing their job. The instant they stop doing their job that’s when you replace them. Not just replace them every few years because someone else might be able to do that job just as good.
Buy me a plane ticket to China and I’ll do it.
Even countries that have term limits don’t give all the power to whoever is in charge. If they did then that person could just declare there being no more term limits and themselves the god emperor or whatever to start abusing their power. It’s not like the thought to abuse power never crosses someone’s mind until after they’ve been in charge for 6 years so if we replace them before that happens we prevent people abusing power. They can’t do that because they can’t. There are already structures in place that prevent abusing power. Things like distributing power across multiple people and only being in charge of what’s necessary. Things like a constitution, things like a senate, having a process for laws to be reviewed and signed off before they can be put into effect.
It wouldn’t’ve even passed a bible studies course because she didn’t even quote the bible.