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.

I think you’re right, but you’re just doing it by classifying popular YouTubers as not celebrities.

I would argue that fame from social media alone (YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, etc) is still fame and enough to make a person a celebrity. It’s the same picture.

Just like a person can be made bitter and angry by the clouds over head as they shake their fist at them and yell.

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.”

I was being facetious, I was at best neutral before horse gate.

Yeah, that’s his remaining audience in a nutshell. It’s legit creepy.

No, when he exposed his loli horse porn to the world I lost the respect I never actually had for him in the first place i guess.

It’s one thing to be so stupid you don’t have a different personal computer to do your weird jerk off shit. It’s another to then expose your creepy jerk off shit to your audience. It’s yet another third thing that your audience is willing to just ignore it and keep watching. Gross!

Pretty sure the only sentient being that would need to be worried around Vaush would be a little girl he wants to take on a stable tour.

Maybe you’re some kind of genius… Maybe it was that whole polls showing both Biden and Trump being beaten by not just any other Democrat or republican, they were polling under THEORETICAL OPPONENTS. Each of them could have been beaten by the THOUGHT of a different candidate.

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.

“If we give someone benzos…”

Exactly! That would not be described as voluntary intoxication for this example, you as the hospital are responsible for his state.

If a person came in via the ambulance because they are in the midst of an episode of alcohol poisoning and are non-verbal, do you wait to take action until they can consent? You see what I’m saying?

That’s fair I think, consent in context of contracts (however not appropriate for this example). To your point the law does specify a point of being too drunk (black out, incapacitated), and the definition of that point, and if you were at that point can be argued in court. Even if you are not incapacitated, a contract in bad faith when alcohol is involved can also be voided (like I mentioned).

But medically if you are unable to give consent due to intoxication, that means they can do whatever they think they need to, to keep you alive. Unless you have an advanced directive or a family member that can legally make decisions for you. So that’s totally opposite.

Consent isn’t an argument with regards criminal charges, except sex. It’s the only case in which consent changes a legal act into an illegal act.

You can’t legally consent to a crime period, you can choose not to press charges for that crime, but there’s no consent for an illegal act, unless you’ve entered into a contract in some way.