I entirely agree. A former roommate’s mom moved to Montana, and they remarked, “It’s so white here”.

For many southerners, bigotry against non-whites is part of their identity. Are they saying the KKK should be a protected class? How can making a religion out of the belief that you deserve a particular piece of real estate be a protected class?

Zionism is an ethno-cultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside of Europe.

In other words, taking somebody else’s land.

It eventually focused on the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history.

Specifically, Palestinian’s land.

Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism became the ideology supporting the protection and development of Israel as a Jewish state and has been described as Israel’s national or state ideology.

State religion. That never turns out bad, does it? /s

Taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

Now do the rest of the world.

Unlike Imperial Storm Troopers, they sometimes hit their target.

Judging by Musk’s previous styling choices, may I offer this?

Ross — a 23-year-old streamer with a mostly young male audience of more than 1.4 million Kick followers and 4.4 million YouTube subscribers — fawned over the former president during a 90-minute stream and gave him a Rolex and a Tesla Cybertruck wrapped in images of the former president.

A dumpster for a dumpster fire.

I’m sure it won’t have any of the defects of the cyberdumpster.

Reminds me of that Iraqi official who, during Desert Storm, kept saying victory was imminent right up the moment the allied tanks came rolling up the street.

Thank you for the reference. Having read most of it so far, I came across this passage:

Having disqualified Sue’s argument, Cabanis turns to Sömmerring’s thesis on the post-decapitation persistence of an active, conscious sensorium commune. Several facts argue against this. What is commonly known as a “rabbit punch” shows that a violent blow to the neck leads to an immediate loss of consciousness. Furthermore, a rapid hemorrhage deprives the brain of the blood it needs to function. Each of the individual circumstances brought together by the guillotine is enough to produce a true syncope. Cabanis concludes from this that the head and body of a man who has been guillotined endure no suffering and that death is as fast as the stroke of the blade.

deleted by creator

Thus highlighting the difference between justice and revenge.

While, for the most part, I agree with you, there are cases that are simply a textbook example of needing the death penalty. If somebody, in their right mind, decides to kill simply because they want to know what it’s like, they need to be removed from the herd.

Look at inmates who continue to present a danger not only to staff, but to other inmates. If, as far as medical science is able to, they are in their right mind, what do you do with them?

You only need to look at the imbalance in death penalties by skin color to know something is wrong.

All five justices agreed with at least part of the ruling. But two of the justices said they felt the firing squad was not a legal way to kill an inmate and one of them felt the electric chair is a cruel and unusual punishment.

Lethal injection has serious downsides. It turns out the drugs simply keep you from moving about as you slowly asphyxiate.

The electric chair it truly cruel. Yes, it fries your system, but it does it relatively slowly.

The firing squad has the issue of the marksman’s aim. If it’s off, you die slowly. Even if it’s dead on, pun intended, you realize what’s happening.

I’ve always wondered if, perhaps, the fastest method would be the guillotine.

Many years ago, in OMNI magazine, there was a story about a future where it was deemed inhumane to even let someone know they were going to be executed. They were kept in a small apartment awaiting the verdict. When the verdict was announced, no matter what it was, they were told they were free to go. Upon grabbing the doorknob, a neurotoxin was injected into the guilty with almost instantaneous effect.

As to discussions of the death penalty itself, I feel if someone was in their right mind, understood the consequences of their actions, and, if placed in the same situation, would commit the crime again, yes, they need to be removed from society permanently. Those who are deemed mentally fit, but bent like serial killers, should lose all their freedom and be placed at the disposal of mental health professionals to study.

What are your thoughts on ways of killing that would be humane?

Yet another reason I’m glad I use youtube-dl.

The Russian response is purely for their internal consumption.

Let me introduce you to wombat poop. Go ahead and google that.

Good luck getting DeSatan to accept that. He’ll take the money, and move it off to some “other” uses, but accept climate change?

The US is not the only country that has enacted laws governing jurisdiction in cases of genocide that has occurred outside their borders. Many of these countries also have laws that are automatically in force when a determination of genocide has been made by the UN. These laws generally cover sanctions and doing business with “those who perpetrate or support genocide”.

https://thesentinelproject.org/2013/06/14/when-to-act-a-states-obligations-and-responsibilities-regarding-genocide/

Many other States have adopted statutes pursuant to Article VI, which explicitly provide not only for territorial jurisdiction, but also for universal jurisdiction over genocide. Examples of such statutes include: the 2002 German Code of Crimes Against International Law (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch) Section 1 of which recognizes the jurisdiction of German courts over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed outside the German territory and to which Germany has no specific link. Likewise, Section 2, § 1(a) of the Dutch International Crimes Act of 19 June 2003 makes provision for universal jurisdiction over genocide provided that the alleged perpetrator is physically present in the Netherlands. Moreover, the Canadian’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, adopted on 24 June 2000 sets the basis for universal jurisdiction for genocide; Section 6, §1 of this Act reads as follows:

Every person who, either before or after the coming into force of this section, commits outside Canada (a) genocide […] is guilty of an indictable offence and may be prosecuted for that offence in accordance with section 8.

Many other countries, including France, Switzerland, Spain, Belgium, and Austria, have adopted national legislation, as required under Genocide Convention Article VI, that allow for the prosecution of genocide committed outside their territories.

The political question of the US’ position on genocide rulings can be better understood by reading what it has done with previous atrocities.

This repost was done during Bush Sr’s presidency by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. It goes through the US’ response in the past to quite a few incidents and describes the decisions that were made and the thinking behind them.

https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/Todd_Buchwald_Report_031819.pdf

Under-shaved, brown-robed and jovial, Benanti is adept at explaining how technology can change the world, “with humans ceding the power of choice to an algorithm that knows us too well. Some people treat AIs like idols, like oracles, like demigods. The risk is that they delegate critical thinking and decisional power to these machines.”

AI is about choices. He points out: “Already a few tens of thousands of years ago, the club could have been a very useful tool or a weapon to destroy others …”

The Italians, not pioneers in the technology, warn that AI prefigures a world in which progress does not optimise human capabilities, but replaces them.

While I certainly do not side with the Catholic Church and their moralistic dogma, it is valuable to pay attention to a group that has made it their mission to think about how humanity is affected by various things. Never mind that they have their own bias in how humanity should be conducting itself. If instead, you treat them as a think tank with a relatively narrow focus, then we can make use of their work in this area.

I’m relieved to see at least one world leader though listening to an expert on technology. The US Congress had a department just for interpreting and researching various high technology concepts, but in their infinite wisdom they decided they knew better and disbanded the department.

One may disagree with the Catholic churches interpretation of their explanations of how AI technology can affect humans, but we would be fools to completely disregard their reports and findings.