You are an idiot. 500 years ago the average lifespan was half what it is today. Modeling our lives, especially our eating habits, after people who didn't know what germs were, is phenomenally stupid. Also, eating vegetables only didn't evolve. 500 years ago almost everyone survived on gruel (oats and water paste) or versions of that all year long. The vast majority of people ate meat once or twice a year. Why does this matter?
Also I do not fear burgers because the cow it came from had a bad life (wtf does that even mean?). I don't like to eat factory farmed food because it fucks up the environment and is ethically irresponsible. That doesn't mean I don't like burgers. And luckily, eating heritage beef is infinitely tastier than eating the super-processed shit that passes for "meat" in most places today.
But really. 500 years ago life sucked for most people.
Wait. Was Professor Fussy the former Mayor of Sunnydale?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution and domestication. Dogs weren't taken from the wild and spirited into human houses for our nefarious purposes (only to later eat babies). Wolves, or maybe pre-wolves, evolved into dogs.
There's a reason that cats who have never had human interaction are called "feral" instead of "wild." It's because cats and dogs are species that have been domesticated, as a breed (like cattle and chickens). So when they're unsocialized, they're feral--not wild or undomesticated the way that, say, blue whales are. Or any other wild animal.
Snakes are wild animals. I think snakes are fucking awesome, in fact. I am not afraid of snakes. I understand how venom works. But I would never own a snake for a pet for the same reason I'd never own a dolphin--because it's fucked up to take an animal out of its habitat because you want it for a pet. Even if it was born in captivity, that doesn't mean it belongs in captivity--it was still taken out of its natural habitat.
But that's not really the issue here. The issue is that this particular species of snake is devastating the Everglades. Dogs are not doing that. Cats are frequently doing something similar to songbirds, in fact, which is why there are whole groups of people who dedicate time and energy to getting people to keeping their cats indoors, and rounding up and spaying/neutering feral cats, because they have such a terrible effect on indigenous songbird populations.
But your repeated comparisons of snakes and dogs is silly and irrelevant. No one here is talking about pythons and the danger they pose to humans. It's about the danger they pose to other animals. Nobody here is concerned about the plight of the raccoon, I can assure you, except inasmuch as raccoons are an integral and necessary part of the Everglades ecosystem. Raccoons fucking suck. But that doesn't make it ok for pythons to eat them.
I'm not sure why you're so mad, or why you keep hating on dogs here. I'm not sure what your point is. Because it seems to be that people should stop being afraid of snakes, because snakes aren't that dangerous to humans--which, nobody here disagrees with you. And you yourself agree that pythons ought to be removed from the Everglades, so clearly you see that it's an issue there.
So I guess your problem is that you want to be able to cross state lines with your snake? Is your vet in another state or something? Your "right to happiness" can't trump Florida's right to protect the Everglades, and preventing snakes from crossing state lines (which those laws don't do, btw, in real life) is an attempt to preserve an already fragile and vulnerable place.
Also nobody has a right to happiness, and they don't even have a right to pursue happiness when it violates the rights of other people (like the right of Floridians to have the Everglades).
You are being ridiculous. If you're actually interested in advocating for the rights of snake owners, stop defending the assholes who release their snakes into the wild. Presumably you don't do that, but the few people who do--and it just takes a few!--make you look bad.
The common denominator is not you. It's rape culture and patriarchy. You haven't done anything wrong. But you've clearly got some shit locked down--you survived, for one, and you're angry, for two, and you're aware that your complex feelings and self-loathing is fucked up, three, and you're aware that it's not your fault, even if you're still working on perfecting that awareness, four. I'd say you're doing quite well, which is always nice because fuck those people who tried to fuck you up.
This is a great comment. I especially think that there may be things about Neanderthal communication that we can't know--will never know--that ought to make cloning unethical. For example, let's say that there's something about Neanderthal communication that would make communication with modern humans impossible, or severely limited. But just because she couldn't communicate with us, it wouldn't mean she couldn't conceivably communicate with another neanderthal, if she lived thousands of years ago.
For example, let's say that dog barking is a complex language that we cannot understand. And that dogs' relationship to their language is similar to our relationship to language--which is, we generally consider people who cannot have language but have the intellectual and emotional capacity for language, to be deprived of something essentially human (like people who had no contact with other humans during their formative years). In this sense, language and the capacity for communication are required to fully manifest humanity, with obvious caveats for people who are developmentally unable to acquire language. If there were no dogs and we cloned one, creating one where there weren't any before, the dog would have the capacity--perhaps the desire--to communicate with other dogs. But without other dogs to communicate with, that dog would be prevented from manifesting something that is essentially doggish, because humans can't communicate via barking, and dogs can't be taught to speak, no matter how much we try to teach them.
If we were to clone an entity that had the capacity and desire for communication, but couldn't do it because
Wait how would human cloning end the organ transplant lists? I don't mean cloning a human heart, but cloning a whole human? Or do you mean cloning just organs and stuff, as opposed to cloning and growing humans as organ farms? I am confused.
I agree that you should have the right to walk home from class without worrying about being raped.
I just think that the "you" of that sentence ought to apply to everyone, not just rich white college kids.
That sucks. It makes me angry that this happens to women (I don't cry easily so it's not something Ihave to deal with).
On the up side, crying frequently is actually really, really healthy. The more you cry the better you feel, so to speak.
Why is he still your boyfriend? He sounds like a real asshole.
WTF? Nobody ever tells Keanu that he just needs to cheer up and smile. Nobody ever hates on him for being "surly" just because he doesn't flirt with the cameras.
Why on earth does it matter to you whether people get divorced or stay married through the rough patches?
There is just no way our behavior evolved to survive in pairs. If anything it evolved to survive in groups and communal gangs.
Does it make a difference whether the mistreating party is a man or a woman?
Also good is to point out that when the average woman is PMSing her hormone profile is most similar to the average man's hormone profile. In other words, women at their "craziest" are governed by the chemicals that govern male behavior all the time.
Not really. If they had been honest from the beginning then there would have been no anger.
Yeah, what keythah said. I'm glad that you aren't controlling and creepy, and that you don't consider your fiance your ward. But based on the description you have of your relationship, it makes perfect sense that I deduced--not assumed--some things about you.
This is a teachable moment! Words are powerful and can do things we don't intend them to do. It's good to be aware of how the fact that you're a man may give extra meaning to your words (like when you say you won't let your fiance do something in a world in which many, many men are actually in control of what "their" women are and are not allowed to do, you know that you're speaking figuratively but considering the world I do not know that). Examine thy privilege.
But thank you for clarifying.
Oh, I don't think that violence done to a woman is more bad that violence done to a man--not at all. Violence is violence, and murder is murder, full stop. My concern is that violence against women is routinely minimized--rationalized ("she shouldn't have provoked him"), or reduced ("it wasn't THAT big a deal"), or blamed on the woman ("Why was she married to a guy like him in the first place?"), or just ignored altogether. The fact that so many of the governor's pardoned convicts were convicted for gender-based violence--because those crimes are gender-based, as male-on-female domestic violence always is gendered and misogynist--makes me suspicious of his opinions about gender-based violence--like it's not as bad as violence not predicated on gender. Because of the reasons I listed above (rationalizing, justifying, reduced, etc) it seems likely that the governor thinks it's not a big deal. Like, a guy who killed his wife because she wanted a divorce isn't a danger to society, because he killed her because she wanted a divorce. There was a reason and a logic to his violence, so the likelihood of him doing it again is low. That's a failure of logic that implies that women's lives are less valuable than men's lives, or perhaps more precisely, that violence done against women because they're women is less violent violence than violence done against someone regardless of their gender. And not just the governor, but, as you said, the people who chose which inmates got sent to the governor's mansion.
You're right, that's a much better explanation. Thank you for clarifying and correcting.
As Petrie the Pterodactyl said, how long will she be dealing with the effects of those photos being public? Probably for the rest of her life.
A friend of mine was raped, pictures were taken while she was getting raped, and they were distributed to pornography sites. That means that there are pictures of her at age 14 floating around the internet, people looking at her getting raped and likely masturbating. That is violence.
Not all violence is physical. He published sexually explicit photos of her against her will. If watching someone shower is sexual assault, then so should this be--it makes her body available to people against her will. In all likelihood, the results of his behavior made her the focus of intense bullying, probably more sexual harassment, rumors, etc etc. For a high school student? That shit can be lethal.
If someone took pictures of me in the shower against my will, and published them, it would be violent. This is violence because even though she took the picture, or consented to it, she didn't consent to his publicizing it. That's violence against her person even if not her body.
Really? You can post nude pictures of your girlfriend against her wishes and not be a sex offender? WTF world?!
