*Don't actually drive fast unless you're a racer on a racing track
Its a scientific fact that I can’t drive 55.
I used to have a "driving CD." It started with that song, and the second track was "Highway to Hell," followed by "Highway to the Danger Zone."
Surprisingly, while I do have 3 racing licenses, I have never gotten a speeding ticket.
Dont worry, I keep it under 140 mph. And I only speed when I have a spotter.
Or you're bootlegging.
Also try not to hit the wall at 180mph.
Damn that’s some solid advice, thanks! I’ll hear it for ~250
Or if you're boozed up
~$ echo ”for i in $FASCISTS; do /usr/bin/punchInTheFace i; done” > fa.sh~$ sudo bash fa.shBottom center should be "make a sexbot out of some woman you saw online"
👂?????
Leah Brahms
Who's the bash the fash guy?
Dale Earnhardt, a deceased American race car driver that is being appropriated in a sorta sarcastic manner. He was a NASCAR driver, so very popular with the twats that think immigration is brown/black people stealing white people jobs and that contrails, idk, can control your mind or something. Using him for messages like bashin the fascists is extra kooky, as the aforementioned twats who worship Dale also happen to be going the way of fascism nowadays.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Picking up wild animals which would much prefer to be left alone, so you can get your picture taken, is not loving them. Keeping animals in cages so you can have something on your shelf to look at, is not loving them. Most animal ownership is possession for the possessive, masquerading as caring.
I feel like I've seen this take a lot more in the past ~5 years than I did before. Not just that zoos are unethical, but that any animal ownership (or really interaction of any kind) is inherently abusive.
You're certainly entitled to feel however you want about animal ownership and act accordingly, but personally I feel like it's honestly kind of a weird take?
Humans are obviously not the only species that develops symbiolotic relationships with other organisms (in a diversity of power dynamics), but we are also not the only species who take on specifcally ownership or shepherd roles for other species (like spiders with frog pets, or fungus farmer ants, among many many other examples). Thus, the ontological position this opinion must operate from is that humans are somehow distinct and superior to nature, such that we have separate and unique responsibilities not to engage in mutualistic ownership with other organisms, on the basis that like, we're somehow "above" that? That we're so enlightened and knowledgeable that we exist in a category of responsibility distinct from all other organisms?
Of course, a lot of our relationships to animals can be described as harmful in other terms without needing to take this specific stance. Like, our relationship with many agricultural animals can be critiqued through the harm done to their individual well-beings and through the harm their propagation does to the global environment. Or irresponsible pet owners can be critiqued for how their unwillingness to control the reproduction or predatory abilities of their pets can harm local ecosystems, like an introduced invasive species might. Or valid criticisms of many zoos when they prioritize profits over animal welfare, rehabilitation, ecosystem restoration, and education. Or that the general public picking up wild animals is a problem because it disturbs their fragile ecosystems and traumatizes them, especially when done on the large scale of human populations (but distinctly not for ecological study, wild animal healthcare, education, etc., like Steve Irwin et. al) But none of these are specific criques of the mutualistic ownership relationship itself as much as problems with the way we handle that relationship.
Idk, I'm interested to understand your opinion, especially if it has detail I'm missing beyond "we shouldn't have pets, zoos, or farms because we're better than that"!
My most charitable interpretation of you bringing up that spiders have frog pets is that, because pet-ownership is a thing that other animals do, it’s okay/natural for humans to do them too. And if we argue that it’s not okay for humans to do it, it must be because we think humans are inherently superior or something. Hopefully it’s accurate because that’s how I understood you.
This leads me to say:
The difference between us and other species that develop ownership/shepherding/symbiotic/whatever relationships with other creatures, is that humans can conceptualize morality. (inb4 the “morality is subjective” line: yeah, it is. But if you agree that suffering, torture, etc is a bad thing then we’re on the same page here axiomatically.) Unlike spiders, or farmer ants, we understand that causing other creatures to suffer is wrong. Because we are smart enough to understand, we have the responsibility to act in accordance with that understanding.
Another point is: male lions kill the cubs of other lions. Dolphins rape each other. Rats eat their own babies sometimes. Cats play with the mice they catch before killing them. The natural world is full of animals doing horrific things to each other. If you are going to say that it’s okay for humans to keep pets (or whatever) because animals do it/it’s natural… why can’t humans kill and eat their own babies? It’s because we know causing others to suffer is wrong, and therefore hold ourselves to a higher standard. We ARE superior: in the sense that we’ve invented philosophy and morality. That’s not a weird take. And it’s not a take that’s incompatible with this argument.
Similarly, we don’t hold our own children accountable for their crimes to the same degree we hold adults. If a kid steals money, or beats someone up, our society doesn’t punish them the same way as an adult. Because we understand that their brains have not yet developed the capacity to fully understand empathy. To truly be responsible for the suffering they cause.
Animals are, a lot like human children in that sense.
Therefore, we totally can “exist in a category of responsibility distinct from all other organisms.” We literally already do when it comes to things like murder, rape, and torture. Why not add distressing and frightening animals to take photos with them, or keeping them in cages, or what have you; to the list of things we should take responsibility for?
I hope that helps clear up the confusion for you.
On "mutual ownership". I'm not convinced that anything, whose agency has been removed through confinement, can be said to have equal weight in the decision to be owned, and thus be claimed "mutual".
You give evidence of our like behavior with other animals, and claim that my position MUST operate from the belief of our "difference and superiority".
Consider the inverse: Humans are not distinct and not superior. Therefor, all animal behavior is acceptable human behavior, for we are not but animals.
Its not exactly the society most would want to live in. People can and do use animal nature as means to justify horrible behavior. "Its a dog eat dog world, the villain proclaims", as if the only surprise is that their victim would have expected it any other way. Mantises devour the male after copulation. Why then do you demand I not do the same?! Pointing to the way things are in nature as a means to find justification for human behavior doesn't seem to lead to a useful foundation for ethics; maybe it even to to its dissolution.
So yes, I think we're different. I think that in many ways our difference comes from our responsibility of stewardship. Because we do have knowledge, agency and control to the degree that we can destroy or restore environments.
I cannot express how much I love this meme
Erwin and Attenborough didn't believe either of those things.
Attenborough is a massive hypocrit who wants the poors to go plant based but refuses to, and also thinks the world is overpopulated but wont use fewer resources.
Erwin's job was literally harassing animals for entertainment until one finally got the better of him.
I haven't heard anything about David Attenborough talking about plant based stuff so I won't dispute it but he did help found and fund the zoology museum in my town, one that specifically tries to educate people on the dangers of climate change and making species endangered. From what I've seen of his filming they're pretty conscious about not leaving any waste behind too.
“We must change our diet. The true tragedy of our time is still unfolding – the loss of biodiversity,” Sir David says in the film. “Half of fertile land on Earth is now farmland, 70 percent of birds are domestic, majority chickens. There’s little left for the world. We have completely destroyed it.
and yet
“I do eat cheese, I have to say, and I eat fish. But by and large I’ve become much more vegetarian over the past few years than I thought I would ever be.”
Sure he helps fund some decent shit. He's rich, knighted, connected to aristocracy. He's also a spineless twerp.
Erwin routinely relocated animals from areas that had high human interaction to conservation or animal refugee. He never used tranquilizes while showing the animals of left alone, were no threat.
The one that "got him" only got him because he didn't believe in harming animals and he could have easily survived it.
People aren't ready for the truth
they hated the rat because she made them think critically about social responsibility.
