Yeah, that’s a fair point, honestly.

I feel you, it’s for sure gray.

I get what you’re saying, but my point is it’s not really accepted. It’s actually an incredibly controversial process that has recently been updated in the US to include not targeting civilians specifically.

Totally respect it’s not your idea, I’m just pointing out that I think it’s much more complicated when you involve civilian collateral damage, which is actually terrorism in a mask with an overcoat.

People are pretty universal in their condemnation of American attacks that kill civilians, that’s why we see the names of those people less, Trump made that change. Biden rolled back those changes finally, but you’re not gonna believe some of the new rules, stuff like stop fucking drone striking civilians you sociopaths: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/01/us/biden-drone-strikes.html

So yeah, America is both complicit in and has been (maybe still is) a sponsor of terror in many situations. And if one of those people affected by America in that way were to somehow get a bunch of cell phone bombs on GI’s hips while they were out with their families, to those people it might be justified while I would still call it terrorism.

You know, I bet they have a problem with both! Shooting a rocket at a market is comparable to putting explosives on a possible combatant and detonating it while they are in a market. Let alone 3,000x that latter scenario.

Like I don’t care for terroristic acts on civilians no matter where they come from. I’m unironically ok with them mass targeting the rocket sites, though!

There’s been a retail explosion with the thca loophole through the 2018 farm bill. It’s really only picked up the last couple of years with both price plummeting and access skyrocketing this year.

Technical legality has meant many of these sellers are using regular billing systems (Card payments, not cash only) are shipping via usps, and using square space to build retail sites.

They’ll know this is as least partially part of the cause is they numbers go up once congress closes the farm bill loophole.

It’s a journal site, here’s the link to the actual study in nature. The language is tougher.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-62511-3

I think i see where you’re coming from, to me it feels like traveling a long path from the obvious economics of subsidy and advertising, especially the ubiquity of beef, and making that about the patriarchy. Feels removed from the problem of economic incentive, but more than just access seems to drive it, this paper has multiple relevant drivers though and it does seem to be at least partially based on gender.

Yeah, i think that research might be missing some context…

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20240618/Study-finds-men-eat-meat-more-often-than-women-especially-in-gender-equal-developed-countries.aspx

Meat consumption by males goes up when you have a developed nation, it’s almost purely economic, stupid to try to make this part of the culture war considering how small these communities are and their median ages.

“Economic factors explain the influence of human development since meat production costs are higher than plant-origin food production. Nations with more resources provide more options for individuals to buy and eat beef. The findings build on comparable studies with psychological traits and help rule out reference group effects as a possible reason.”

Really? The advice I’ve seen for years at a traffic stop is to only roll down your window enough to talk to the officer and hand over paperwork and to close it immediately after. Along with not voluntarily providing any extra information and only answering questions as asked.

That’s for your safety, not theirs. You can argue the full tints, but the vehicle was surrounded by officers and many of them were aware this person was playing football that day.

In context this is one of stupidest escalations I’ve seen since ever and I can’t believe none of these other cops stopped it from happening. Give this a little more time and the rest of the guys are gonna get lit up along with the dude who’s on administrative leave.

Like in order to make this shit look ok, you have to full on compare the reaction to someone who was engaged in a crash or hit and run, has a warrant, or is a sovcit. They could run this dudes plates in 7 seconds and understand this dude wasnt a threat, they probably should have escorted him the rest of the way after they gave him his citation! This was a physical response to disrespect, ridiculousintimidation and you shouldn’t be ok with it.

Sov Cits don’t have documentation and refuse to comply with lawful orders. This gentleman gave the police his documentation and they got mad he wasn’t bending over and spreading his asshole.

It’s funny cause this situation is so crazy with how the cops escalated this situation when it wasn’t warranted, you actually have to compare them to someone doing an actual crime!

Like that’s how crazy this debate even is. Rich dude in super car being an asshole vs a person who is willfully driving with fake paperwork hoping a cop pulls them over.

Hill just looked like a rich asshole in a hurry and I can’t imagine anyone advocating that the police action was OK.

I really can’t imagine thinking that no matter how disrespectful someone was during a traffic violation, that escalating to pulling someone out of the car and putting them in handcuffs is ok.

Office was never in any danger, he was actually surrounded by other officers. You should be able to disrespect an officer and that should not escalate being physically handled like that.

The expectation for a criminal in a criminal act is to have as much force as needed applied to them to get them to comply. The expectation of an asshole at a traffic stop should be to get his big ticket and keep moving.

If you don’t want to be called a boot licker, stop licking boots!

I dunno, I’m way less terrified of the guy with a 40k watch in a 150k car than I would be in any other situation. Unless I was super jealous that this black dude was rich, and he didn’t show immediate respect to me. Then I might pull him out of his car despite having everything I need to write the citation and being in 0 danger literally surrounded by other officers.

“show me to the non-verbal panel control, okaaaaii”

Lol you think I’m white.

Next thing you know you’ll be telling me you can’t be racist cause of your white friends.

Uh hu, are the white supremacists who came up with the verbiage you don’t like in the room right now?

Yeah chattel slavery was super bad, maybe uniquely bad, that really doesn’t say anything about all slavery, which is also bad, no real reason to split hairs expect you specifically don’t want to be associated with white people, I guess. I would call that racism honestly. Would you call that Asian supremacy?

“OUR SLAVERY ISN’T AS BAD, AS THOSE YUCKY WHITES!”

I don’t know that Muslims are white tho… So that’s not very careful about language.

Yup totally! Just seems like a stretch from “cooking food is just making protein easier to digest” to, “chemically synthesizing elements that generally exist in a abundant state in the normal food source of an animal from vegetable sources and fortifying a plant based alternative that only gives macro nutrients we currentlt understand to be necessary for life”.

That being said, if any plant based hormones were cheaper than the meat based alternative (all meat based cat food is also fortified in this way), the industry would switch to plant based and not tell anyone.

I don’t generally split hairs on enslaving people to make a racist argument that my people are better in some way cause they might have treated their slaves better in some circumstances, that’s legit crazy. To the point where I try to reject proper verbiage because it paints people a color I don’t like.

If I had a choice to be a slave, would I prefer being an Asian woman being group raped by Asian men until death, would I rather be castrated and worked to death in persia, would I rather he worked to death an whipped on a plantation, would I rather be a house slave for the Ting (which by the way they said they were very nice to their slaves and I bet they was never a bad experience!), would I rather be a Chinese space to the Khan?

None of those sound good, none of them sound like a race is better than the other, you are making a racial argument based on the nuances of slavery and it’s kinda silly!

Racist.

Why? I mean I know, I just want to hear your explanation.

Do I put a value difference between the Atlantic slave trade/chattel slavery and the sexual slavery of the Vietnamese women, or Korean women? No I guess I don’t! Every version of slavery is both abhorrent and devalues human life, and a well kept slave is functionally still a slave.

I feel like you just ignored any examples that do meet your criteria cause you desperately want Western slavery to somehow be worse than Eastern slavery.

Honestly just sounds like exceptionalism to me. Again, sounds like you are a racist.

This is so interesting, honestly your arguments are so all over the place it’s hard to keep up. So you think the idea of humans as personal property was a Western invention that specifically the East Asians didn’t engage in? And you are using the transatlantic slave trade specifically to point that out? Are you arguing that Asian slavery is better because slaves occasionally had rights?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Asia

I think the slaves of the Khmer might disagree with you most recently. It’s well known the Tang dynasty in China kept Western slaves. What are you trying to say?