I had a cat which responded vocally with “mrrr” when hearing his name. Saying the name repeatedly had an 80% chance of summoning my cat, and a 20% chance that he would come running and jumping up into my hug. I loved that cat so much. Smart loving bastard who liked to also chew on my wife’s foot on her way to the bathroom at night, and lovingly hump his towel when he was bored.

5 babies and parts of their bodies hidden by other babies are all accounted for.

Some stays in Turkey do very well. However I’ve seen plenty of cats in need of medical attention (swollen limbs, covered in their own feces, etc) and some people actually harassing them. Same in Greece according to my cousin who was doing some charity work on an island to improve cats conditions.

Stray population needs to be small enough for them to do well with the help they can get from people. The best thing that Turks do for cats, is too neuter them.

Not really. I adopted a stray kitten which cost 0$, a couple of vet visits set me back maybe 200$ for most of his life. Cat food isn’t expensive, car toys, and the environment was easy to supply and make it interesting. Later in life he got a tumor, and regular vet visits did cost a couple of thousand bucks and he eventually had to be put to sleep. But that was the most amazing cat, who gave happiness and love to 4 people, and a kitty friend.

Yes. But. Not sexual nudity. Nudity is fine in itself, but the fact that most people see it as sexually explicit, sexually suggestive, or an actual sexual activity, is the problem. Consciously I am for this, but subconsciously I’d still react to nudity as sexual (as most other people), because I’ve not yet encountered enough non-sexual nudity to get used to it. It’s like going to a beach - at first it’s “niiice sexy bodies”, but on the second day it’s like “meh, people making it hard to get to the water”. It’s the novelty.

Wear whatever the hell you want, right? Screw genders and made up rules around them.

So you know that there’s places where you don’t exist? It’s called everywhere else, but unfortunately I’m stuck with a dishonest person who keeps on spewing fallacies.

Then your problem is the judicial system, isn’t it?

So how is the police supposed to stop murderers who threaten to murder them? Care to elaborate your ultimate wisdom?

Well it’s good that you care. It’s the multitude of opinions and open discussion, what makes a democracy work.

Unfortunately we have siloes of opinions, so you’re pretty much either trying to yell in an echo chamber or at best, argue with a moderate like me. The moment you’re faced with the people leaning right, some of the rhetoric might be scary for them, and they might retract further into their own silo, where more and more extremist views are tolerated.

The key to a functioning society, is moderation in enforcement of law (so that the state continues to be the only one who is able to, and expected to exert force), and understanding of each other so that it remains an open dialog.

I’m originally from a country where society has degraded into 2 irreconcilable camps, and it got to the point where I can’t even stand my own parents because their echo chambers had lead them to extreme extremes. And I’m not the only one.

Right now what is paramount is a government that optimizes social well-being (think Finland), and the enforcement of those laws, because everyone from Putin (and the general club of autocrats) to fundamentalist fascists everywhere else, want to destabilize that right now. A prosperous democracy is a threat to all of them. Whether you like it or not, we are in the middle of an ideological war.

When other people murder far more people, is the police just supposed to watch it happen?

Is there an end to your naive idealism?

Keep in mind that privacy is really a recent concept. Human societies never had privacy before the industrial revolution. Everybody knew everybody else and what they were doing. I do want my privacy, but modern technology makes it too easy to create and grow any organization that can rival the state in power. While we do have the power to influence and control the state, we have no power over competing organizations that act like authoritarian states.

There needs to be a balance, an amount of power that the state can exercise, that’s just right for keeping it as a monopoly on violence. Absolute privacy, where the state has transparency, is taking away all the power and advantages from the state and gives them to whoever wants to challenge that state.

In other words, nuance.

I get your opinion but you have to account for the fact that it’s not Le Pen who’s in the chair. And France is actually ranked quite high on the civil liberties. While I get your perspective, I believe that it’s exaggerated.

Read the article. Title is clickbait. It’s only with approval from a judge. You know, alternatively they could just arrest and imprison the person, which is what every country is doing. Not saying it’s without worrying, but there’s important nuance that most are missing.

P.S.

Absolute extremist attitudes like “nobody should be able” and so on, have absolutely no place in modern society. There’s always nuance. Libertarianism doesn’t work, and laws must be enforced. It sucks, but when there are forces that want to hurt people and destabilize societies, you can’t go by the rule that everyone is a saint. The world will punish this attitude.

Yes, the world isn’t perfect, but for ducks sake, quit sensationalizing anecdotes and representing them as “this always happens”. That’s dishonest.

I explicitly said that I’m all for justice. You are being dishonest with your last statement, which is an emotional reaction that is completely unnecessary. Cool down.

So if your sources are correct, then when comparing the organization that should have the monopoly on violence, to how much violence they enact, it’s 15%,… it’s kinda dumb, isn’t it? It’s dumb to expect the organization with the monopoly on violence to enact an order of magnitude less violence than the “competitors”.

And you derive this conclusion on … what study or poll? Because there are instruments to measure that you know. It’s called voting.

Or are you referring to a violent loud minority and saying that it’s a majority?

Do you have any idea how many people are killed by the police when they are unarmed?

Fewer than armed people killing other people when the police isn’t there. If that ain’t true then obviously the police should be disbanded. And since you haven’t brought up any data, I will bring it, from the latest news. 15 incidents like that, in France, in the last year. And according to data I found for 2016, there were around 1500 total gun deaths (about 100 times more).

So yeah, I have an idea. Do you?

Here it was blatent murder

A person was killed. Whether it was murder or manslaughter, is not up to you to decide because you have no degree in law in France.

and if it wasn’t for the video leaked on social media the cop would face absolutely no consequences.

Ok, so the cop will face consequences now. Isn’t that the goal? Why hurt other people that have nothing to do with it? Your reasoning is completely absent here.

When justice fail, the social contract is broken

Who is gonna carry out justice for all the assholes that hurt people in these riots? Shall we play the escalation game just to satisfy your weird revenge boner?

When the social contract is broken, there is no peace or discussion.

So your solution is to escalate violence endlessly. slow clap

Neither France nor the USA were built on peaceful protests.

You don’t know history very well, do you? You’re comparing authoritarian regimes with democratic ones now.

You make it seem like the race matters in this incident. As if a black person killed is different from a pink person killed. You have preferential treatment of problems based on skin color. That is racist.

And this was not the first black person to be murdered in France by the police like this.

ok racist.

Pattern? What pattern? Do you have any public data to go with that statement, that shows a problem SO BIG with authorities that it justifies violence? In the last years, 15 people have been killed by police in such incidents. 8 police officers have been charged. Without knowing the details about the rest, how can you claim that it’s a systemic problem? You know what a systemic problem looks like? More than 2000 people were killed BY cars in the same period. THAT’s a systemic problem. For the scale of this problem however, peaceful protests calling for transparency in these cases, and other constructive demands, should be the reaction, and not this. This? This just shows that France is dealing with violence and gives many people the impression that it’s OK if police sometimes kill such violent people. I literally had this conversation with the other side, who tried to convince me that the rioters should be shot or something. 17 year old broke the law driving the vehicle, and recklessly tried to speed away from this. The police officer over-reacted (cars do kill people quite a lot) and should be investigated for manslaughter, but what should not happen is this. Why is it so hard to see? Why are y’all so trigger happy? Maybe because it’s not your house that was attacked and your family injured? Maybe because it’s not your neighbourhood which got trashed and your business looted?

So if I abhor violence and people getting hurt, suddenly I’m a “capitalist shill”.

Speaks volumes of your intellect, I must say