circuscritic

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

As risky and escalatory as it is, I can at least understand using freight airplanes to deliver incendiary packages to shipping warehouses.

I'm not saying I think it's good, but I can at least piece together the rationale for such actions from Russia.

The same cannot be said for blowing up civilian airliners.

Just from a realpolitik perspective, domestic support for military aid to Ukraine is broadly down across the voting populace in most, if not all, of Ukraine's biggest ($$$$) partners. Eventually that will likely result in the election of candidates who reflect that view.

Want to know the fastest way to not just immediately reverse that, but have 75%+ of the voting populace support radically escalating Western involvement? Blow up one of their civilian airliners.

Shit, blow up a French airliner and I'd say it would be coin flip whether they deploy active duty military ready for combat operations, in theatre, within a month.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Downing a civilian aircraft with a SAM battery, or MANPAD, near an active conflict, is galaxies apart from planting explosives on civilian airliners.

And I don't mean legally speaking, although it is, I mean they aren't even in the same universe when talking about blowback, politics, military responses, threat management, PR, escalation ladders, etc.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yes, I specifically excluded sanctioned/lawful wildlife management practices.

Unfortunately you'll see this a lot with polar bears, which is one of the reasons why proper waste management is so critical in Arctic towns/villages.

Poor waste management practices are capable of attracting more than just polar bears, but they are the most dangerous, for a host of reasons.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You wanted to engage on the topic of hunting. But you expected to be the only one allowed to be asking questions.

So instead of answering the one question asked of you, you generate bogus reasons to justify why you're above responding to any questions about your motivations, or knowledge/experience of the subject.

I'm not sure you even know what subsistence hunting is. Maybe you know the definition, but not the context. It seems like you assume everyone lives in an urban area, and can live a vegan lifestyle by going to the grocery store.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

From eating them and growing up in an area with a lot of subsistence, and sports, hunting.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (4 children)

You mean you don't find merit in them. But I'm done, because at least I tried to answer your questions. Where you made no attempt at answering the one question I've asked you twice.

Which itself is answer enough.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children)

People who hunt prey for trophies, and waste the meat, are also pieces of shit. It's called wanton waste, and it's illegal.

But no one hunts predators for their meat. They hunt them for sport. They hunt them because they get a joy from killing them, and for no other reason. I'm not sure what you're not getting about this. They only keep the meat, because again, it's wanton waste and it's illegal.

Bear meat is disgusting. Predators do not taste good. They're killed so weak men can feel strong. They hunt predators because they enjoy killing for the sake of killing, and for trophies. That's it.

This is the third time I rearticulated the same point, which everyone else here seems to get.

Now that I've done that for you, can you please let me know which one of these you are:

A. Someone who hunts predators.

B. Someone who has no experience with, or knowledge of, hunting.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think they still have legal requirements about wanton waste, or at least best effort.

The no tag limit makes sense though, as they're an incredibly invasive species and the aspirational goal is removal.

None of this should be considered legal advice, I could be mistaken on the regulations. You should check them out yourself to make sure I'm not full of shit, or confused.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago (16 children)

They do. Texas allows ariel hunting of hogs, there's no season, and no tag limit. I know lots of other areas have similar approaches of differentiating hunting laws and seasons when it comes to invasive species.

All the hunters I've known, have been an outdoor guys and nature conservationists, but also conservative usually.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (25 children)

There's prey animals, like deer. Those are hunted for subsistence, to eat and use.

Predators do not taste good, they taste bad in fact. They are not hunted for subsistence to feed your family, they're hunted for sport. They are killed for fun, so assholes can stuff them and mount their heads on walls.

So yeah, there's a difference. Either you yourself, like to hunt predators for sport, or you have no experience with, or knowledge of, hunting at all. Either way, your take is awful.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (51 children)

Fuck anyone who hunts bears.

There is a natural order to prey and predators.

If you're going to hunt a predator, and it's not for sanctioned wildlife management culls, get a Bowie knife and have at it. Otherwise, I hope you suffer a horrible death.

I'm not anti-hunting, at all. Hunting is easily the most humane way to eat meat. But hunting predators is a sport, not subsistence.

You can pretty much guarantee that anyone who hunts predators for sport, is a gigantic asshole and you should not feel bad about wishing them harm. I would take that statement even further, but I don't want the mods to remove this comment.

To be clear, no one likes bear meat, they're opportunistic scavengers. These bears were hunted for sport most likely, but the hunters were slightly better than your average bear hunting asshole, and at least didn't waste the meat. Most likely because it would be a wasted kill, and illegal.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I don't know if anything's changed in the last 10-20 years or so, but I was under the impression that Albania was country with a deeply entrenched culture of organized crime, the Albanian mafia if you will.

And isn't one of their biggest businesses, aside from drug smuggling, human trafficking?

If I recall correctly, historically, Southern Italian and Albanian societies shared many of the same social conditions that enabled the rise of Italian and Sicilian organized crime, including a long history generational blood fueds, and something similar to Omertà, the Kanun.

Both of which were social customs and informal legal structures, predicated upon the belief that there were no legitimate or trustworthy authorities that could be relied upon. Whether through corruption, dysfunction, or prejudice in Italy, or the various colonial rulers who controlled what is now modern Albania.

I think I got most of that accurate, but someone can correct me if I'm mistaken anywhere. But, it was incredibly off topic and probably irrelevant, because I'm sure none of that will have any relationship or impact on what happens to the asylum seekers and migrants that Italy is going to be sending their way.

view more: ‹ prev next ›