Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)Q
Posts
15
Comments
653
Joined
3 yr. ago

European guy, weird by default.

You dislike what I say, great. Makes the world a more interesting of a place. But try to disagree with me beyond a downvote. Argue your point. Let's see if we can reach a consensus between our positions.

  • Vet clinic work is off the table. I can't work or even volunteer as an aid in one unless I have formal trainning in veterinary background, if not at least as a dog groomer, which has some degree of official recognition. And as someone who has cared dogs for near 20 years, I trust less and less on the animal handling skills being taught to professionals. Somewhere, somehow, it changed from being a proactive, measured, case by case situation, to a by default view that all animals are dangerous. The first vet that received a dog of mine had a calm, confident, posture. It inspired trust. Nowadays, the sense of insecurity is palpable in new vets and vet nurses.

    Whatever skill I akready own comes from my experience as someone that is fond of large work type dogs when most just want dogs to be seen and small in size to easy to handle and easier to mistreat with little to no consequence. And I don't see it in any way as enough. Thus, searching for what I am.

    Regarding rescue/shelter work I have given hours at my municipal shelter. Private shelters are very rare and the only one in existance near me requires the type of certification I'm looking for.

  • I've just checked it and it seems to be a good fit for what I want.

    Thank you very much.

  • I am going to repeat my point as many times as necessary until it gets through: your example is only a punishment system with an extra layer to be more palatable to the society where it is inserted.

    Being free does not imply in any moment an individual can do whatever they may concieve or desire; freedom requires and demands constraint, precisely because the freedom of the other is the boundary of my own. Life in society predicates on this. There is no society of one; the individual often finds a swift end if insisting on it, by its own actions.

    A society that simply represses or discards individuals because they engaged in destructive behaviour is not doing anything to in fact solve a problem. A society is as responsible by its individuals as the individuals are by their society. And a society that so simply and easily opts by fractioning itself just to allow more (blatantly artificial) freedom to its elements is not a society. It is something I lack the word to describe but a society it is not.

  • That is a system predicated on getting rid of the problematic, like the one it exists today, just with an added layer of distancing, to ease the rest of the population's mind. It does not solve any problem.

  • So what? It still exists on the web. People can visit you, enjoy your content. Make a stand.

  • Nobody. Unless you had the capability/knowledge/will to maintain your own instance, which makes your content and yourself unbreakable.

  • That doesn't work. The average individual is too hedonistic to refrain from any pleasureable or self reinforcing loop. It's been a cautionary tale in stories since ancient times.

  • If I didn't understood there is already a problem of bad actors, I wouldn't have approached your reply. And deny it in any way would be bad faith from me.

    What I feel the need to underscore is that individuals make and influence groups and even the most progressively thought out environment is open to being corrupted if any individual present there lacks, in any way, the self awareness that their attitude is damaging.

    It's not the group that needs to regulate the individual; the regulation needs to arise from the individual themselves, in the first place. And most individuals lack that hard individual sense of responsability.

  • Before all that - and you are right on your take - there is a more basic flaw that affects social media: people do not know how to act properly.

    The anonimity emboldens the small minds that use it to mistreat, slander and ridicule others and spread lies and rumours.

    Unless we can force people to act with civility - which implies people being fairly conscious of the consequences of their words and actions - social media will remain what it is: a cesspool where the worst of our species destils into a refined poison.

  • Is this guy still alive and still living with his mother? I had enough of his music and persona being shoved in my ears by classmates when I was in high school.

  • No matter the amount of brain power I put to it I can't make sense if why the UK does not release the Northern Ireland territory.

    Under EU umbrella with would have been nearly frictionless, if well thought out.

    And Ireland, as a nation, accepts it. I would love to see the outcomes of referendums on both countries regarding that territory, one for releasing the area, the other on integrating it. Peacefully, obviously.

  • I share this view as well.

  • I worked with a guy that had a run in with two HA's that came to our country to settle a score for a local affiliate.

    What I was told is that they have this structure where if you have enough favour in the "club" to ask for help in solving an issue, you get members sent from abroad to "lend some shade".

    The other guy got two bruisers sent from the US that only managed to get beat up and arrested in a very public fashion here. Spent a few months seeing the sun rise chekered and got deported afterwards.

  • That is a social problem not organized crime.

  • So it is essentially an ingrained scheme of institutional corruption, too hard to break apart because it has become a de facto means of getting things done.

  • That sounds too much of a conspiracy theory to hold any value as an argument.

    Are you stating that by default if a nation does not have organized crime, then the state itself is a crime organization?

    That implies all individuals within such country are criminals, without excuse or exception.

  • But do all have homegrown societies? My country, to my knowledge, does not nor has ever had such organizations. We started getting some degree of them when we had a large influx of eastern europe imigrants that were followed by criminal organizations but they don't have enough footing here to become influent.

  • Organized crime, in my understanding, is not something that collapses with the death of a member or two or through a well placed intervention of authoritites. It has structure by itself, transcends generations, develops its culture, has a public, visible face, either for popular support or fear engineering.

  • Organized crime, in my understanding, implies structure, reach and even some degree of a social facade to clear money and move interests. Not a group of individuals constantly on the crosshairs.