The Darker Side of the News

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby eSOANEM » Thu Apr 17, 2014 6:51 pm UTC

You are a detective working a murder case, you find a bullet from a certain type of gun. You go do some detectiving and get a list of a dozen suspects, you find out 3 of them have a gun of that type registered. It's certainly not proof, but Bayes' theorem is a marvellous thing and checking those people out first will, on average, speed up your investigation.

Red Hal wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:Also, "armed militia members"? Is that seriously a thing? The only times I ever hear about militia are in countries either undergoing a revolution/civil war/insurgency. Having militia in the US is crazy. I don't understand how on earth the US got so successful when it's so stupidly distrustful of its government and it has so much general idiocy.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Well, the people who wrote the second amendment didn't live in the modern day. I see countries with militia (which would call themselves well regulated) but which I wouldn't consider free and I also see countries without milita (of any sort, well-regulated or not) which I would. In my view, it's a false premise.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 17, 2014 8:13 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:You are a detective working a murder case, you find a bullet from a certain type of gun. You go do some detectiving and get a list of a dozen suspects, you find out 3 of them have a gun of that type registered. It's certainly not proof, but Bayes' theorem is a marvellous thing and checking those people out first will, on average, speed up your investigation.


Bullets don't map to specific brands of guns so elegantly. You can, once you have found a gun, if not too many rounds have been put through it since(and the original bullet has not been damaged), fire another bullet through it to confirm that it was in fact the gun used in the shooting.

Good for getting evidence for a court case, not so good for actually finding the person, and not something registration is very helpful with.

Similar misconceptions is what resulted in a giant catalog of rounds fired from every gun sold in MD, at an expense of millions of dollars. It's friggin' useless. People buy guns to shoot them, and minute details like that change rapidly over the lifespan of a firearm. A single range trip will usually invalidate all the data.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby eSOANEM » Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:04 pm UTC

Eh, even if it doesn't narrow it down that much, the wonderful thing about Bayes' theorem is that pretty much any information helps. You the calibre of the gun which fired the shot and, of your dozen suspects, 8 have a registered gun of that calibre, you investigate them first/more you're going to come out at a net advantage.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:15 pm UTC

Pfff, just another blatant example of police state discrimination.

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1994
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Grop » Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:02 am UTC

Red Hal wrote:"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Reading several threads in the same time, I thought this was related to Ukraine ...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:24 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:Eh, even if it doesn't narrow it down that much, the wonderful thing about Bayes' theorem is that pretty much any information helps. You the calibre of the gun which fired the shot and, of your dozen suspects, 8 have a registered gun of that calibre, you investigate them first/more you're going to come out at a net advantage.


I think you might be severely overestimating the police force if you think that they use Bayesian statistics.

Also, your information betrays your lack of firearms knowledge. Consider the AR-15. What caliber does it shoot? Well, 5.56 is the most common. But the answer is really whatever you want, because they can be built with basically whatever. The part that is registered is the receiver. The part that leaves the markings on the bullet is the barrel. The caliber of rounds that can be used are determined by barrel/chamber(which frequently is not part of the registered receiver).

When I bought my AR-15, as is fairly typical, I pointed at the receiver I liked, picked an upper I liked, etc...guy slapped them together, we did a lot of paperwork, and he handed it to me. Despite MD registering the gun, there's no connection between barrel and receiver. This isn't because I had any interest in obscuring it...I didn't. It's just because the serial number on the receiver tells you fuck-all about what caliber I feel like shooting.

It is a bit like claiming that registering cars will tell you which people are using too much premium gasoline. Er...maybe you can derive a little information, but the connections between these data points are really weak.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby eSOANEM » Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:24 pm UTC

Hm, in that case the registration is insufficient to be properly helpful. There's no reason registrations couldn't be required to include calibre information.

And I'm not suggesting that the police use Bayesian statistics but rather that, if they use common sense and go for the people who definitely have guns that could have fired the bullet(s) involved then, because of Baye's theorem (which they don't need to know anything about) they'll come out with a net plus in the long term.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Apr 18, 2014 5:45 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:Hm, in that case the registration is insufficient to be properly helpful. There's no reason registrations couldn't be required to include calibre information.


Why? Caliber isn't even a 1:1 match vs barrels. For instance, the Raging Judge shoots .454, .45, and .410. The last is a shotgun round. I could not reasonably list all the variations within a caliber here. All of this happens from the same gun, through the same barrel, without modification.

The same is true of a very long list of other caliber pairings, etc.

Barrels/uppers are traditionally very swappable, too. My current upper(a 5.56 which also shoots .223, etc) can be swapped out for another caliber upper in about fifteen seconds with no tools.

Any degree of funding on this is better spent hiring more ballistics experts or cops. Well, presuming you have the cops working homicides, and not off violating folks rights or giving traffic tickets or what not. Sometimes the police abuse thread is a bit depressing.

Incidentally, you're probably realizing right now that this indicates that media reporting on guns is abysmally inaccurate and uninformative. It's at LEAST as bad as watching them try to report on any highly technical matter. Or on health food. My god, the idea that every food can be summarized as "good for you" or "bad for you".... watching the news may actually be making us dumber, I fear. Well, some news, at least.

elasto
Posts: 3751
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:49 am UTC

Not quite a zero-tolerance story, but in the same vein:

A 15-year old boy with ADHD, comprehension delay disorder, and an anxiety disorder recorded classmates bullying him in school. But instead of reprimanding the tormentors, school officials targeted the boy for wiretapping — and he was later convicted of disorderly conduct by a district judge.

Using an iPad, a student at South Fayette High School in Pennsylvania whose name is undisclosed, recorded a seven minute video of his peers trying to harass him. In the recording, two other students discuss pulling the victim’s pants down, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. And a loud noise is heard further into the recording, after which a student said, “I was just trying to scare him.”

According to the victim, being bullied is a daily occurrence. Speaking to South Fayette District Judge Maureen McGraw-Desmet, he explained, “This wasn’t just a one-time thing. This always happens every day in that class.” He revealed that he used the iPad to expose what was happening to him. “Because I always felt like it wasn’t me being heard,” the boy told McGraw-Dismet.

The high school staff knew about the bullying prior to the iPad incident. Assistant Principal Aaron Skrbin testified that Shea Love, the victim’s mother, previously voiced concerns about the tormentors. Last October, she approached the school when a classmate targeted the victim with spitwads — but Skrbin did not “[classify] that as bullying.”

When school officials learned about the recording, Principal Scott Milburn contacted local police on February 12, for what he considered a “wiretapping incident.” After approaching the boy for questioning, South Fayette Lieutenant Robert Kurta told him to dispose of the recording, and charged him with disorderly conduct. In Pennsylvania, the low-level crime is known as a “summary offense,” and does not typically result in jail time for juveniles. Nonetheless, they can stay on a juvenile’s criminal record. McGraw-Desmet later upheld the charges, fining the student “a minimum of $25.” The 15-year old was also ordered to pay court costs. Love is currently trying to get the decision reversed.

Statistics show that millions of students are bullied every year, and that teachers only intervene in 4 percent of incidents.

Meanwhile, teachers and school officials frequently turn to police to handle disciplinary violations at school, in what is known as the school-to-prison pipeline. Last December, for example, a group of three African American boys were charged for disorderly conduct after police claimed they were blocking “pedestrian traffic while standing on the sidewalk.” The three students were waiting for a school bus.


Story here, but I like this commentary on it here also.

Kid with mental disorders gets bullied daily... He complains but the school does nothing... He records the bullying and the school sets the police on him... It's almost like the schools system wants to maximize the chances of another flip-out-crazy gun rampage...

elasto
Posts: 3751
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Sun Apr 20, 2014 2:42 am UTC

What the f*ck is wrong with people? Ok so this isn't new news but it wasn't really necessary to start a whole new thread for it:

Papers unearthed by the BBC reveal that British and American commanders ensured that the liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944 was seen as a "whites only" victory.

Many who fought Nazi Germany during World War II did so to defeat the vicious racism that left millions of Jews dead. Yet the BBC's Document programme has seen evidence that black colonial soldiers - who made up around two-thirds of Free French forces - were deliberately removed from the unit that led the Allied advance into the French capital.

By the time France fell in June 1940, 17,000 of its black, mainly West African colonial troops, known as the Tirailleurs Senegalais, lay dead. Many of them were simply shot where they stood soon after surrendering to German troops who often regarded them as sub-human savages.

Their chance for revenge came in August 1944 as Allied troops prepared to retake Paris. But despite their overwhelming numbers, they were not to get it.

The leader of the Free French forces, Charles de Gaulle, made it clear that he wanted his Frenchmen to lead the liberation of Paris. Allied High Command agreed, but only on one condition: De Gaulle's division must not contain any black soldiers.

In January 1944 Eisenhower's Chief of Staff, Major General Walter Bedell Smith, was to write in a memo stamped, "confidential": "It is more desirable that the division mentioned above consist of white personnel. This would indicate the Second Armoured Division, which with only one fourth native personnel, is the only French division operationally available that could be made one hundred percent white."

At the time America segregated its own troops along racial lines and did not allow black GIs to fight alongside their white comrades until the late stages of the war.

Given the fact that Britain did not segregate its forces and had a large and valued Indian army, one might have expected London to object to such a racist policy. Yet this does not appear to have been the case.

A document written by the British General, Frederick Morgan, to Allied Supreme Command stated: "It is unfortunate that the only French formation that is 100% white is an armoured division in Morocco. Every other French division is only about 40% white. I have told Colonel de Chevene that his chances of getting what he wants will be vastly improved if he can produce a white infantry division."

Finding an all-white division that was available proved to be impossible due to the enormous contribution made to the French Army by West African conscripts. So, Allied Command insisted that all black soldiers be taken out and replaced by white ones from other units.

When it became clear that there were not enough white soldiers to fill the gaps, soldiers from parts of North Africa and the Middle East were used instead.

In the end, nearly everyone was happy. De Gaulle got his wish to have a French division lead the liberation of Paris, even though the shortage of white troops meant that many of his men were actually Spanish; The British and Americans got their "Whites Only" Liberation even though many of the troops involved were North African or Syrian.

For France's West African Tirailleurs Senegalais, however, there was little to celebrate. Despite forming 65% of Free French Forces and dying in large numbers for France, they were to have no heroes' welcome in Paris. After the liberation of the French capital many were simply stripped of their uniforms and sent home. To make matters even worse, in 1959 their pensions were frozen.

Former French colonial soldier, Issa Cisse from Senegal, who is now 87 years-old, looks back on it all with sadness and evident resentment.
"We, the Senegalese, were commanded by the white French chiefs," he said. "We were colonised by the French. We were forced to go to war. Forced to follow the orders that said, do this, do that, and we did. France has not been grateful. Not at all."


I say again: What the f*ck is wrong with people? They presumably saw how evil Hitler's 'master race' worldview was, yet couldn't see the parallels with their own.

link

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Jave D » Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:55 am UTC

elasto wrote:What the f*ck is wrong with people? Ok so this isn't new news but it wasn't really necessary to start a whole new thread for it:

Papers unearthed by the BBC reveal that British and American commanders ensured that the liberation of Paris on 25 August 1944 was seen as a "whites only" victory.

Many who fought Nazi Germany during World War II did so to defeat the vicious racism that left millions of Jews dead. Yet the BBC's Document programme has seen evidence that black colonial soldiers - who made up around two-thirds of Free French forces - were deliberately removed from the unit that led the Allied advance into the French capital.

By the time France fell in June 1940, 17,000 of its black, mainly West African colonial troops, known as the Tirailleurs Senegalais, lay dead. Many of them were simply shot where they stood soon after surrendering to German troops who often regarded them as sub-human savages.

Their chance for revenge came in August 1944 as Allied troops prepared to retake Paris. But despite their overwhelming numbers, they were not to get it.

The leader of the Free French forces, Charles de Gaulle, made it clear that he wanted his Frenchmen to lead the liberation of Paris. Allied High Command agreed, but only on one condition: De Gaulle's division must not contain any black soldiers.

In January 1944 Eisenhower's Chief of Staff, Major General Walter Bedell Smith, was to write in a memo stamped, "confidential": "It is more desirable that the division mentioned above consist of white personnel. This would indicate the Second Armoured Division, which with only one fourth native personnel, is the only French division operationally available that could be made one hundred percent white."

At the time America segregated its own troops along racial lines and did not allow black GIs to fight alongside their white comrades until the late stages of the war.

Given the fact that Britain did not segregate its forces and had a large and valued Indian army, one might have expected London to object to such a racist policy. Yet this does not appear to have been the case.

A document written by the British General, Frederick Morgan, to Allied Supreme Command stated: "It is unfortunate that the only French formation that is 100% white is an armoured division in Morocco. Every other French division is only about 40% white. I have told Colonel de Chevene that his chances of getting what he wants will be vastly improved if he can produce a white infantry division."

Finding an all-white division that was available proved to be impossible due to the enormous contribution made to the French Army by West African conscripts. So, Allied Command insisted that all black soldiers be taken out and replaced by white ones from other units.

When it became clear that there were not enough white soldiers to fill the gaps, soldiers from parts of North Africa and the Middle East were used instead.

In the end, nearly everyone was happy. De Gaulle got his wish to have a French division lead the liberation of Paris, even though the shortage of white troops meant that many of his men were actually Spanish; The British and Americans got their "Whites Only" Liberation even though many of the troops involved were North African or Syrian.

For France's West African Tirailleurs Senegalais, however, there was little to celebrate. Despite forming 65% of Free French Forces and dying in large numbers for France, they were to have no heroes' welcome in Paris. After the liberation of the French capital many were simply stripped of their uniforms and sent home. To make matters even worse, in 1959 their pensions were frozen.

Former French colonial soldier, Issa Cisse from Senegal, who is now 87 years-old, looks back on it all with sadness and evident resentment.
"We, the Senegalese, were commanded by the white French chiefs," he said. "We were colonised by the French. We were forced to go to war. Forced to follow the orders that said, do this, do that, and we did. France has not been grateful. Not at all."


I say again: What the f*ck is wrong with people? They presumably saw how evil Hitler's 'master race' worldview was, yet couldn't see the parallels with their own.

link


On the whole, people tend to be motivated more by self-interest than abstract idealism. If Nazi Germany had not attacked certain other nations... how long, if ever, would it have taken for Allies to put an end to the regime? Sure, Stalin probably would have, but that's not an endearing fact. For that matter, the US still practiced slavery after a point where powerful nations had already outlawed it... but it wasn't ended by them. People have a way of turning a blind eye to atrocity.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5926
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Angua » Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:48 pm UTC

Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Diadem » Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:05 pm UTC


Something that happens hundreds of millions of times each day all over the world, and petty trolling on the internet. This is your reason for wanting to abandon the planet?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

speising
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby speising » Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:23 pm UTC

really? people regularly decorate trees with self made dead cats?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thesh » Fri Apr 25, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Something that happens hundreds of millions of times each day all over the world


Wait, if that's the case then shouldn't it make you want to abandon the world even more?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

elasto
Posts: 3751
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:11 am UTC

I guess they're referring to the fact that many (most?) non-domesticated animals either die violently by being chased and eaten alive, or via some painful and debilitating illness.

Of course that doesn't mean whoever did this isn't a psychopathic lunatic and quite possibly a serial killer in the making, but nature isn't some kind of maternal goddess but a ruthless and violent psychopath herself.

Nature is a reason to want to abandon this world - and hopefully via technology we'll be able to achieve that some day - either via hedonistic bio-engineering or perfect VR (or both).

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10187
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby addams » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:52 am UTC

elasto wrote:I guess they're referring to the fact that many (most?) non-domesticated animals either die violently by being chased and eaten alive, or via some painful and debilitating illness.

Of course that doesn't mean whoever did this isn't a psychopathic lunatic and quite possibly a serial killer in the making, but nature isn't some kind of maternal goddess but a ruthless and violent psychopath herself.

Nature is a reason to want to abandon this world - and hopefully via technology we'll be able to achieve that some day - either via hedonistic bio-engineering or perfect VR (or both).

ech. Now. Now.
Nature is not so bad.

(fuck)
Yes, She is!

Nature Sucks!
She Sucks, then She Blows.

We are a smart species we can get along with Her.
She, like all of us, needs to be Tamed.

She will always have Events.
Events where we suffer terribly

We can handle Nature.
Our problem is Each Other.

If we escape to the Stars,
We Will Be There!

I consider it a bad move.
Immoral. Don't take us.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5926
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Angua » Sat Apr 26, 2014 7:27 am UTC

Uh, wow, if you don't see much difference between cats dying in accidents or natural causes, and the fact that there are people out there who decided to cruel and brutally kill them, then I don't know what else to say.

The fact that those two articles articles were in the top ten articles for the evening was what made me not want to live on this planet.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Diadem » Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:44 am UTC

Angua wrote:Uh, wow, if you don't see much difference between cats dying in accidents or natural causes, and the fact that there are people out there who decided to cruel and brutally kill them, then I don't know what else to say.

I suppose I wasn't clear enough, so let me spell it out. I am not talking about accidents or natural causes. Human beings deliberately kill about 150 billion (yes, billion) animals each year. The overwhelming majority of those in ways far more brutal than how these cats were killed.

Look, I'm not saying that's necessarily indefensible. I'm actually not even a vegetarian myself. But I do dislike the staggering hypocrisy people display when they complain about a few dead cats as if that somehow matters more. If you're not a vegan, you have no right to complain about it, and if you are a vegan, you still shouldn't concern yourself with trivialities.

(And yes, I realize I just called the brutal murder of several dozen cats a triviality. I'm using that language very deliberately. If it sounds harsh, that is only because the reality is that harsh).
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

speising
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby speising » Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:58 pm UTC

in my mind, it is not about the dead cats, but the mindset of people who do things like that. i'd feel really uncomfortable in the vicinity of such a lunatic, and i guess angua extends this vicinity to the whole planet.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1889
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby natraj » Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:18 pm UTC

i'm not 100% sure, ethically, what the difference is between that and what billions of people do every single day. in a lot of the developed world, at least, eating meat isn't a necessity, it is a pleasure. the person stringing up dead cats in trees was perhaps also doing this for pleasure. both ways, humans are killing animals because it pleases them to do so. some people hunt. generally they are not considered lunatics by sociey as a whole. is it because they're killing animals themselves instead of hiring other people to do it for them? are the animals less dead if you are one step removed from their slaughter?
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Ormurinn » Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:35 pm UTC

natraj wrote:i'm not 100% sure, ethically, what the difference is between that and what billions of people do every single day. in a lot of the developed world, at least, eating meat isn't a necessity, it is a pleasure. the person stringing up dead cats in trees was perhaps also doing this for pleasure. both ways, humans are killing animals because it pleases them to do so. some people hunt. generally they are not considered lunatics by sociey as a whole. is it because they're killing animals themselves instead of hiring other people to do it for them? are the animals less dead if you are one step removed from their slaughter?


Eating meat or at least animal products absolutely is necessary for an optimal diet. You can argue that ethical humans would accept a decline in health in exchange for not being party to the killing of animals, but that's not quite so strong a condemnation (and one I'd disagree with).

Also, western style slaughterhouses are designed to minimize suffering in a way that being beaten to death by a lead pipe doesn't.

Hunting in particular involves a sporting competition between predator and prey, a humane kill (hence caliber limits), and the animal has lived a free life before being killed - I'd argue hunting is more humane than farming.

In any case, if we're going by a "per animal killed" basis then veganism kills more animals than a diet consisting mainly of large herbivores.

Finally, killing cats for pleasure in this way is substantially more similar to animal bloodsports than either eating an omnivorous diet or hunting. It's a virtue ethics consideration - Omnivores enjoy the taste and nutrition of meat. Hunters enjoy the challenge of a stalking in addition to that. Animal torturers are getting off on the pain of another creature - te motivations are categorically different.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Thirty-one
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:13 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thirty-one » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:13 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:In any case, if we're going by a "per animal killed" basis then veganism kills more animals than a diet consisting mainly of large herbivores.


This is why we should start farming whales.
Annoyed, getting worked up or bored by the post above? Help is here.

Mutex
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Mutex » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:31 pm UTC

Thirty-one wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:In any case, if we're going by a "per animal killed" basis then veganism kills more animals than a diet consisting mainly of large herbivores.


This is why we should start farming whales.


Something to suggest to the countries that continue to hunt whales, if you want whale meat, build a whale farm. Problem is they'd no doubt make it as small as possible to save money and we'd have battery-whales.

Also the Old McDonald song would have to be updated.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Ormurinn » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:33 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
Thirty-one wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:In any case, if we're going by a "per animal killed" basis then veganism kills more animals than a diet consisting mainly of large herbivores.


This is why we should start farming whales.


Something to suggest to the countries that continue to hunt whales, if you want whale meat, build a whale farm. Problem is they'd no doubt make it as small as possible to save money and we'd have battery-whales.

Also the Old McDonald song would have to be updated.


You can't farm whales, they have massive trophic needs and are migratory.

Several countries hunt them sustainably though. The Faroes and Greenland than I know of. Japan's hunt was also ecologically sustainable, but I believe it's been cancelled now.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
Thirty-one
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:13 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thirty-one » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:46 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:You can't farm whales, they have massive trophic needs and are migratory.

Several countries hunt them sustainably though. The Faroes and Greenland that I know of. Japan's hunt was also ecologically sustainable, but I believe it's been cancelled now.


Just stating for the record that the farming of whales was meant as a joke.

As long as they're hunted sustainably though, I'm pro that. The minke whale that I've eaten is a "least concern" species, so I don't feel that bad about it, as long as they're being put down as quickly and pain free as possible.

edit: Yes, it did contain an extra not. Thanks.
Last edited by Thirty-one on Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Annoyed, getting worked up or bored by the post above? Help is here.

Mutex
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Mutex » Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:51 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:You can't farm whales, they have massive trophic needs and are migratory.


I imagine there are quite a lot of reasons why a whale farm would be infeasible, would it actually matter that they migrate though? Like, would they die if they couldn't? I'd have thought the reasons they migrate are mostly for food or temperature reasons, which could be controlled in a whale farm.

Thirty-one wrote:As long as they're hunted sustainably though, I'm pro that. The minke whale that I've eaten is a "least concern" species, so I don't feel that bad about it, as long as they're not being put down as quickly and pain free as possible.


I think most people's biggest objection to whale hunting is that it causes huge amounts of suffering, it's really not easy to kill a whale quickly. (Also I think your last sentence contained an extra "not".)

User avatar
Thirty-one
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:13 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thirty-one » Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:08 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:You can't farm whales, they have massive trophic needs and are migratory.


I imagine there are quite a lot of reasons why a whale farm would be infeasible, would it actually matter that they migrate though? Like, would they die if they couldn't? I'd have thought the reasons they migrate are mostly for food or temperature reasons, which could be controlled in a whale farm.

Thirty-one wrote:As long as they're hunted sustainably though, I'm pro that. The minke whale that I've eaten is a "least concern" species, so I don't feel that bad about it, as long as they're not being put down as quickly and pain free as possible.


I think most people's biggest objection to whale hunting is that it causes huge amounts of suffering, it's really not easy to kill a whale quickly. (Also I think your last sentence contained an extra "not".)


If the hunting is sustainable, are you really gaining anything by preventing them from roaming though?

As far as I've heard, industrial chicken farming still struggles to kill their chickens effectively too. At least with whales, you kill one and have a shit ton of meat (well, more like an actual metric ton, but still, that's a lot of chicken per whale).

*edit* added a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_co ... of_whaling
If the numbers for Norway are correct then, 80 percent of whales sold here, will have died pretty quickly. Not sure what similar numbers would be for recreational hunting of deer or moose here, but tracking down bleeding animals is very much a thing hunters do (when they've messed up).
Annoyed, getting worked up or bored by the post above? Help is here.

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Ormurinn » Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:15 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
I think most people's biggest objection to whale hunting is that it causes huge amounts of suffering, it's really not easy to kill a whale quickly. (Also I think your last sentence contained an extra "not".)


Avg of 30 seconds to death in the Faroes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in ... s#The_hunt

Likely they pass out long before then.
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10187
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby addams » Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:18 pm UTC

Thirty-one wrote:
Mutex wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:You can't farm whales, they have massive trophic needs and are migratory.


I imagine there are quite a lot of reasons why a whale farm would be infeasible, would it actually matter that they migrate though? Like, would they die if they couldn't? I'd have thought the reasons they migrate are mostly for food or temperature reasons, which could be controlled in a whale farm.

Thirty-one wrote:As long as they're hunted sustainably though, I'm pro that. The minke whale that I've eaten is a "least concern" species, so I don't feel that bad about it, as long as they're not being put down as quickly and pain free as possible.


I think most people's biggest objection to whale hunting is that it causes huge amounts of suffering, it's really not easy to kill a whale quickly. (Also I think your last sentence contained an extra "not".)


If the hunting is sustainable, are you really gaining anything by preventing them from roaming though?

As far as I've heard, industrial chicken farming still struggles to kill their chickens effectively too. At least with whales, you kill one and have a shit ton of meat (well, more like an actual metric ton, but still, that's a lot of chicken per whale).

Chickens per Whale.
That is the second funniest Ratio on xkcd.

Weird thing to think about.
The way Judy taught it was, "percent of casualties is 100% for That Guy."

The way I internalized it: "Ask The Chicken."
I don't care How Big That Whale is,

The Chicken is not going to Like the Deal.
(fuck) Neither is the Whale.

Whales eat Chicken, too..(ech. can ya' play with your food, if ya' want to?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk-Dkuj-vNU
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Mutex
Posts: 1463
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Mutex » Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:30 pm UTC

Thirty-one wrote:If the hunting is sustainable, are you really gaining anything by preventing them from roaming though?

As far as I've heard, industrial chicken farming still struggles to kill their chickens effectively too. At least with whales, you kill one and have a shit ton of meat (well, more like an actual metric ton, but still, that's a lot of chicken per whale).

*edit* added a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_co ... of_whaling
If the numbers for Norway are correct then, 80 percent of whales sold here, will have died pretty quickly. Not sure what similar numbers would be for recreational hunting of deer or moose here, but tracking down bleeding animals is very much a thing hunters do (when they've messed up).


Well, you're saving time and effort that would be spent hunting them, assuming the area they're being held in basically resembles other farms.

I was just citing what I understand is the main reason people protest whaling rather than trying to go even further OT :) But it's an interesting discussion. I'm aware that chickens aren't killed very humanely either, that's another problem. My preference would be that the animals don't feel it happen, which is still pretty far from what whales (and chickens) go through. Not that I boycott industrial farmed chicken, I just think it's something for all animal farming to aim for.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5926
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Angua » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:09 pm UTC

I guess I kind of feel there's a difference between taking pleasure in causing pain (ie just plain torture) and from eating meat (where someone can not feel great about the fact that you've killed the animal, but happy for the food). I don't think paying someone else to do it has anything to do with it - I don't see anything wrong with farmers or butchers unless they're taking excessive pleasure from the act of killing (and I've always felt uncomfortable with people enjoying killing things while hunting). I understand that some people would argue that you're indirectly taking pleasure from the killing of the animal by eating them, but watching them in pain is not why you're doing it.

Also, I thought the main reason for not eating whales was because they're endangered. Not to do with how they're killed...
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thesh » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:26 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Also, I thought the main reason for not eating whales was because they're endangered. Not to do with how they're killed...


I think a lot of it has to do with the perceived intelligence of the whales, same with dolphins. Because there are many species of whale, and not all of them are endangered, but all of them are illegal to hunt. The Minke whale, for example is not endangered. Unrestricted hunting would probably decimate them, but I see no reason why quotas couldn't be set for various species to allow them to be hunted without endangering the species itself.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

speising
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby speising » Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:11 pm UTC

both, a neurosurgeon, and hannibal lector, cut into human brains. but only one of them is a monster.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Djehutynakht » Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:05 pm UTC

speising wrote:both, a neurosurgeon, and hannibal lector, cut into human brains. but only one of them is a monster.


Yes. For one of them has the purpose of helping the brain, and the other to destroy it.
______________________________________

Diadem wrote:I suppose I wasn't clear enough, so let me spell it out. I am not talking about accidents or natural causes. Human beings deliberately kill about 150 billion (yes, billion) animals each year. The overwhelming majority of those in ways far more brutal than how these cats were killed.

Look, I'm not saying that's necessarily indefensible. I'm actually not even a vegetarian myself. But I do dislike the staggering hypocrisy people display when they complain about a few dead cats as if that somehow matters more. If you're not a vegan, you have no right to complain about it, and if you are a vegan, you still shouldn't concern yourself with trivialities.

(And yes, I realize I just called the brutal murder of several dozen cats a triviality. I'm using that language very deliberately. If it sounds harsh, that is only because the reality is that harsh).


Not necessarily. When we kill animals for food, we kill them for a purpose. To eat them. For our own sustainability. That being said, it's usually the form of humans to kill their food quickly and painlessly as possible (doesn't always happen). Or we kill an animal to remove it's threat.

Whoever did this did not try to kill the cats for food, or because of a threat. They did not kill them for a reason, and as such I have every right to complain.

As a same-species comparison, one who kills a cat for the explicit purpose of consumption in China (although I personally disagree with the killing and eating of cats) is not on the same level as this person. They're eating. Presumably they killed their prey quickly. Not just bashing cats for no other reason than, presumably, cruelty.

Even hunters, if they intend to consume their prey or utilize it in some productive fashion.

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Carlington » Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:31 am UTC

speising wrote:both, a neurosurgeon, and hannibal lector, cut into human brains. but only one of them is a monster.

I don't like the monster myth. It removes us from the people doing these things, it otherises them. It's all too easy to slip from "They're monsters" into "I'm not a monster, what I did was justified, I had reasons..."
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Jave D » Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:48 am UTC

Diadem wrote:
Angua wrote:Uh, wow, if you don't see much difference between cats dying in accidents or natural causes, and the fact that there are people out there who decided to cruel and brutally kill them, then I don't know what else to say.

I suppose I wasn't clear enough, so let me spell it out. I am not talking about accidents or natural causes. Human beings deliberately kill about 150 billion (yes, billion) animals each year. The overwhelming majority of those in ways far more brutal than how these cats were killed.

Look, I'm not saying that's necessarily indefensible. I'm actually not even a vegetarian myself. But I do dislike the staggering hypocrisy people display when they complain about a few dead cats as if that somehow matters more. If you're not a vegan, you have no right to complain about it, and if you are a vegan, you still shouldn't concern yourself with trivialities.

(And yes, I realize I just called the brutal murder of several dozen cats a triviality. I'm using that language very deliberately. If it sounds harsh, that is only because the reality is that harsh).


Oh, I don't have a right to complain about it because I eat meat? Yeah that's utter nonsense. I can and will complain about it, and what are you gonna do about it?

Call me a hypocrite? Ohnoes, I'm a hypocrite! There goes the myth of my perfect consistency in application of all emotions and opinions!

And yet I'd rather be a hypocrite for being OK with killing cows for food and not OK with killing cats for fun, then be non-hypocritical and OK with both.

And while "humans" may kill 150 billion animals a year, "I" do not. In fact, I'm pretty sure I haven't even killed one billion! And so I denounce and condemn a guy who does that. Hell, you might as well say that "humans commit X number of murders every year, so you don't have a right to complain if someone is murdered," as if simply being human both makes one a hypocrite and invalidates the strength of anything they say like magic. It doesn't. That's the harsh reality of this argument, buddy.

Fuck this cat-killing shit-eater. (Billions of animals eat fecal matter every year! ACK! I'm a hypocrite again!)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10187
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby addams » Sun Apr 27, 2014 3:55 am UTC

Gosh, Jave;
Nice Rant There.

Of course, I was convinced of your position before you started.
You are Preaching to the Choir. Al-a-u-la.

EDIT:
From the Heart of Darkness, FOX News.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04 ... latestnews

The Court temporarily stopped a killing.
A State Republican Law Maker and Justice Breaker,
Has decided the Court showed a lack of Public concern.

Christian told FoxNews.com on Monday he has filed articles of impeachment and he intends to discuss with fellow members of the House leadership team how to proceed.

“Lots of [lawmakers] are risk adverse, but I need to do what’s right,” he said. “Voters didn’t send me to the state capitol to sit on my hands.”


Impeach is like Boycott?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Djehutynakht » Thu May 01, 2014 7:18 pm UTC

Turkish-German exchange student killed in Montana "castle doctrine" case.

Celal Dede said he would not have allowed his son to study in the US had he been aware of the lenient gun laws.

"I didn't think for one night that everyone here can kill somebody just because that person entered his back yard," Mr Dede told the German news agency dpa.


Meanwhile, the German consulate in San Francisco has sent a diplomat to help Mr Dede recover his son's body and to meet local law enforcement and prosecutors.

"This is very important to us, and she is there to put pressure on the authorities to investigate thoroughly," consulate spokeswoman Julia Reinhardt said. "We don't have any doubt that this will happen."


On the night of the shooting, Mr Kaarma and his partner Janelle Pflager left their garage door open, and Ms Pflager left her purse in the garage in order to bait intruders, she told police.

They set up motion sensors and a video monitor, prosecutors said.

When the sensors went off just after midnight and they saw a man on the monitor screen, Mr Kaarma went outside and fired a shotgun into the garage without warning several times.

It is unclear what the teenager was doing inside in the garage.
'


To be clear, the state has charged the homeowner with deliberate murder, though he pleads not guilty on the grounds of self-defense laws.

I won't open up the can of worms on the "when can you shoot someone" basis again... but I think it's rather clear here.

He deliberately left his garage open and his wife/girlfriend/etc. deliberately left her purse out in the open for the purpose of luring someone into the garage so they could shoot him. No warning, no alerting the police.

I think there's some kind of dark-irony here.

The shooter's last name is Kaarma.

(his lawyer is "Paul Ryan" too (prominent Republican congressman and vice presidential candidate in 2012, for those forgetting))

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Thu May 01, 2014 7:22 pm UTC

The Castle Doctrine refers to your house only. Someone breaks into your home, you have no way of knowing whether they are there because they are starving or there to rape your family, so you can shoot them. In the garage? No, that's not a potential life or limb scenario.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests