meco03211

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

"What a weird thing to say."

[–] [email protected] 12 points 20 hours ago

It's like you don't even care about kindergarteners and pre-K kids. Have you no shame? Have you no soul?!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

A literal change of heart.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Well they'll make bank during the downturn.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Again a hypothetical is exactly intended to avoid this minutia. What originally started this was when I said there are people that deserve to die. This would necessarily avoid the question of actual guilt vs wrongfully convicted. You've seemingly not balked at that while continuing to run with your "real world" shtick that has no bearing on the underlying ethical question. And again it's perfectly fine if you don't think there is anyone that deserves to die no matter what evil they get up to. The problem is that you will continue to flail and bang your head against the wall if you refuse to understand there are other people in the world who think differently.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (3 children)

So you can't entertain a hypothetical?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (5 children)

The hypothetical doesn't need to exist in reality. It's part of the thought process. It's not meant to be an argument for a realistic applicant of the death penalty. Again... I oppose the death penalty.

Now imagine a society (this can be fictitious) without the resources to house criminals indefinitely. How do you manage using resources, to the detriment of the innocent, to house criminals with a life sentence?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (7 children)

You're too focused on the US. Those are broader hypotheticals.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (9 children)

No. I'm saying unintended effects and the impact to the rest of society needs to be considered. Solitary confinement has been equated with torture. Would you be fine effectively torturing people you want kept alive? If the cost of incarceration left the rest of the society in danger due to lack of resources, would you shoulder that burden?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (11 children)

That's what prisons are for.

What about the other people in the prisons? Is solitary sufficient for you? What about the psychological harm that can do? Does a life sentence of torture work? What amount of resources should we direct to keeping a dangerous person locked up alive and not psychologically tortured? Are there other government functions you'd be fine losing at the cost of housing them? In the US we can manage that, but other countries maybe not.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (13 children)

Protecting people from further harm. Punishment instead of rehabilitation. It's fine if you wouldn't, but understand plenty of people feel differently. Surely you're onboard with some punishment or rehabilitation. There are those who would go further.

As a matter of practice, I oppose the death penalty. But I acknowledge there are people that deserve to die.

 

The cliche understanding is that dogs mark their territory with pee. At times I've been on walks with family and friends with half a dozen dogs. There have been occasions where they form a line just to pee in the same spot.

So how does the ownership work? Is it like a co-op? Last one to pee wins?

 

My understanding is a lot of "greens" eventually become "brown". Green leaves when they dry up would switch to a "brown". Same with dead grass.

With that in mind I tried a very lazy process of only adding greens for a continual process. My first addition to my pile this year was grass clippings. They still haven't really broke down.

Is my approach fundamentally flawed? Or is there something I'm missing to improve the process?

view more: next ›