• 1 Post
  • 11 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle
  • Well congratulations “liberals”, bots, propagandists, defeatists. You win. If Trump had beaten Biden, it would have been Biden’s fault, along with the party. Now the party gets to share the blame with you. You lot gambled this for the rest of us. Let’s hope your bet pays off. Open your wallets and hit the pavement. If you’re a real person and you pitched a fit so this would happen, you got what you wanted. Act like it. Your lobbying won you an obligation to campaign. If you were on social media begging for Biden to quit, now you owe the time you spent here to Harris’s campaign (or whomever the fuck they nominate).

    You bought it. You own it.


  • That kind of attitude lingers dangerously close to the everything-is-a-conspiracy-by-the-shadowy-cabal line of reasoning. Biden’s a Catholic, but it’s certainly not “obvious” that he’s “intentionally letting the nation slip”. You can scroll down barely a page on whitehouse.gov and watch the president commit to restoring the standard of Roe v Wade. It’s under the statements in favor of Pride, committing to combating gun deaths, lowering housing costs, and protecting pensions. Joe Biden’s executive orders have been the most progressive executive action since Roosevelt.

    Here’s something a lot of non-religious folks might not know: the evangelical right? They hate Catholics. The MAGAs hate them ideologically, but the ones running the show hate them because the Catholic Church is their competition when it comes to running private schools and otherwise lucrative community support institutions. Biden is absolutely not on their side, theologically or otherwise.


  • But that wasn’t the question, was it? United international action works and also doesn’t really exist. You think billionaires are going to just throw up their hands and give governments their tax dollars if enough nations agree they should. Doesn’t work that way.

    Read the article you linked. Who’s going to jail in Panama? A few bankers–maybe. Panama changed its rules, and the billionaires just moved all their money elsewhere–exactly as predicted.

    The solution to tax evasion isn’t more tax law. That’s like saying that if only everyone agreed rapists should go to jail, people would stop committing rape.

    I’m in favor of a wealth tax just because any action beats no action, but it is absolutely a half measure. The real solution to this problem is not financial. It’s personal.










  • Not the person to whom you replied, but there are many stories behind that paragraph. The problem is that a dog bred to be strong is likely to be strong enough to ignore a leash when it wants to. A few minutes on your search engine of choice can give you headlines of pits and other powerful breeds getting away from their handlers even when leashed.

    The resulting advocacy is that criminal culpability should still lie even in the absence of negligence on the part of the owner. In many states, tort liability will lie on a strict liability basis (i.e., the owner is liable for damages incurred by the victim of an animal attack even if the animal exhibited no prior dangerous behavior)–in other states, the owner must be aware of the danger of the animal, for instance from prior bites, before liability will attach. That’s generally not true in criminal cases, however, where theories usually require a finding of negligence due to the higher burden of proof and the higher stakes (i.e., incarceration).

    The best analogy I can think of would be statutory rape–you can be guilty and incarcerated even if you consented, the victim consented, and you genuinely had no idea that the victim was below the statutory age. The position would be that we should adopt the same for animal attacks: You can (and should, advocates would argue) be incarcerated even if your animal injured someone through no fault of your own and you had no previous reason to believe the animal would become dangerous.

    Reading about some of the attacks in which the owner exercised their best efforts to control the animal and failed, I can see the argument: Merely owning the animal at all is accepting responsibility for its actions, full stop. Personally, I think current negligence theory is basically sufficient for this (i.e., if the dog can get away from you, you have a duty to know that and prevent it), but the benefit of this kind of strict liability legislation would be that all the bickering in these threads about which breed is good, which breed is bad, and who knows and doesn’t know dogs would evaporate. Put your money where your mouth is. The dog you can count on never to kill someone is the dog that can’t.

    Love, the owner of a small yappy type dog who is harmless because he’s tiny and trivially easy to overpower.