Rape and sexual coercion has been observed in many animals and is hardly unique to dolphins. If you look at humans we display horrific behavior on scales no animal is capable of especially to our prey(which may include humans). Dolphins are aggressive predators and sexually aggressive as well, but I don't think it is reasonable to judge other animals using human morality. Dolphins exhibit altruism helping injured and dying members to stay afloat. Dolphins are able to communicate through vocalization with each other and are able to exhibit multigenerational social learning. Dolphins also exhibit other undesirable behaviors like infanticide. It's important to have a nuanced view on the world and banish black and white moralism.
I think it is import to respect animals and nature for what they actually are instead of what you want them to be, but for symbology most people don't think rapist when they see a dolphin.
In my mind, I included them with dolphins which were excluded. We know they are already fighting the good fight.
I'm not going to suggest dolphins because they have already been used, but I like animal imagery so I want to recommend a couple to consider.
- Ants and Bees: strong association with working and communal effort
- Crows: intelligent communal animals who are also a bit vengeful and represent transition
- Flamingos: LGBTQ+ association and groups that works together while allowing individuality
- Elephants: Big, stronk, and have deep community ties enough to morn each other
The biggest issue is there may be difficulty translating animal imagery across cultural boundaries.
I don't think utilitarianism is a useful tool for analyzing structural problems. Which is what I was trying to condense into a funny quip. If you look at Peter Singer, the most prominent modern day utilitarian, you still see that he has terrible takes on pretty much anything geopolitical and isn't an anti-capitalist. I actually don't have a problem with consequentialism generally, but the materialist analysis is just more effective. I have limited philosophical knowledge so I probably can't answer your actual question.
Instead of dismantling the machine that runs on human blood we will limit the amount of blood to the smallest quantity that can allow the machine to run at maximum capacity.
I don't know why you expected this community to endorse fascist slogans. Reconsider your revisionist stance.
“MORE THAN 1,000 current Fed master account holders have no federal deposit insurance,” she tweeted. “And several current Fed master account holders do not appear to have been eligible for one, yet the Fed granted them one anyway.”
The way to stop homelessness is to fix it before it starts. Which is by far the thing that needs to be in focus. If you stop creating homeless people you will eventually not have to deal with communities of them and instead deal with single people in crisis who can be dealt with in a humane manner by the community. If you have ever experienced having all your rights taken away from you, as I have, you know the extreme injustice and colonial mindset that all of these programs have at their core. We are just civilizing savages vagrants for their benefit after-all isn't it good?
No matter how many draws you put in place you will have people who will not voluntarily comply with any measure put in place due to their inability to or deep distrust rightfully learned from their lived experiences. These people still deserve agency it is the only thing they have. The homeless are victims of social eugenics who are somehow still able to adapt to their extremely unfortunate circumstances. They are all owed a great debt by society and we should treat them that way by voluntarily letting them reintegrate. Yes, absolutely provide whatever services are needed, but never by force.
I'm just making it clear that forcible removal of any kind is not something to advocate for. Public housing doesn't exclude forcible removal.
Public Housing and Shouldn't be removed aren't mutually exclusive. The whole question talks about homeless people as if they are refuse to be dealt with. At least reactionaries recognize libs are full of shit.
good, those mobile weapons labs ovens are a crime against humanity.
As a programmer, I never understood why other programmers were so against organizing. In many cases, they hold the entire company by the balls and could easily shut the whole thing down. Large software projects are complex in completely idiosyncratic ways which greatly reduces the ability to replace staff quickly. Hopefully this dogshit profession is automated away but that probably won't happen any time soon.
Wow, that wiki article is garbage and they still had to quote it out of context while intentionally misinterpreting it for their argument.
You do a structured sale overtime and those do take place even in the billions of dollars without destroying the value of the stock. Also, they can borrow against the value of the stock, usually for extremely low interest rates, to quickly infuse cash. This argument is nonsense. The best recent example is elon buying Twitter. Yes it hurt tesla stock in the short term but it is almost back to the presale value with little impact on his overall networth. The wealth in stocks is very real.
Edit: The elon case isn't even a good example because he was forced to sell the stock much faster than normal.
Every election cycle increasingly feels like some intentionally induced mass hysteria. 2016 salsa slinging hilldog seems almost quaint now.
