I am not missing that point, i am putting it in perspective. And i completely disagree with your assumption regarding who is filling that grave - it is very much being presented as filling these graves with the bodies of your political enemies.

Is raising a rent the same as causing bodily harm? In some cases, i might be tempted to agree. But if we are not wanting to go down the road of teeth for teeth, eye for eye, we have at least to give the democratic process a good chance to try to fix the issues.

Democracy isn’t perfect, and most states institutions aren’t either. I fully accept this premise. But using an ideological background that makes us dig the grave and then fill it because it is essentially the same is very much fucked up.

They still cling to the image of the US as the great protector, while the rest of the world has realized that they have to become independent from them to make sure they are safe. An US which changes allegiance on a whim depending on a vote every few years cannot be a stable ally, and much less a protector. We have to be self-sufficient, and also able to protect ourselves from our previous protectors, because they are not to be relied upon - in reality they might be the biggest aggressor we have to defend against because of their megalomania.

Recentering has nothing do with violence per se, and i do not think appealing to corpos is going to change things by itself. But we have civil institutions in Europe that can be an vent for all of this aggression without causing bodily harm. I believe that democracy can enact meaningful change without physically harming people.

I have never killed an animal larger than a fly, and i would never do that outside of a fight to the death, because i realized the sanctity of life. Nothing can give it back, and nothing can be gained by senselessly spilling blood. I am also an atheist - religion is a socially accepted delusion for me, and should be treated like any mental illness to release humanity from this cycle of insanity society has been caught in thousands of years ago.

I am sorry that you were indoctrinated to make it ok to kill random animals for your gain.

I was thinking about a room with a somewhat circular airflow keeping the isopropanol away as much as possible from the plates, allowing the fumes to accumulate to a concentration which either fucked up the students the nice way or the fiery way lol

Is an concentration of, for example, 1.5% isopropanol in the air enough to get you drunk? my Intuition says yes haha

I have to disagree with that article on multiple things. For starters, I have to (again) put here that I always agreed with the initial premise that violence is a valid way if nonviolent ways are not working.

Digging a grave is no more violent than filling one.

This is the thing i really want to put up here as an inhumane fallacy, making human lives something to be played with. This is simply not true - the first is a preparation step for the worst case, the other one is an active, violent transgression against human life. Lord Farquaad would be proud.

And the whole article disenfranchises every step humanity has made towards progress through negotiation without bashing in skulls. I can’t even…

As I said, I fully support violent uprising against conditions that are not fixable in other ways or that are causing comparable harm in the populace. But this agitation piece is fucking propaganda for violence outside of what is reasonable in a functioning democracy.

This is why i also said preparing for violent struggle is not the same as actively pouring oil into the fire. There’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst. But advocating (NOT preparing!) for violence when so many paths are still open is begging for unneeded casualities on both sides. This has nothing to do with tying your own hands, it has to do with how humane you want to be. Do you want to be as inhumane an CEO deciding to raise rents beyond whats reasonable? If you do not care about loss of life or limb - go ahead! and fuck you all the same, just as they can get fucked, because they left they humanity behind, and you did just the same.

It’s also effective if i am capable of unleashing a biological agent on my adversaries. Should that be the standard? Because that is very easily achieved these days with everything you can buy from a supermarket, see bacillus cereus as an easy example - cook some rice, let it stand at 27°C for a few days and distribute it to your enemies. That’s one of the nice examples that (probably) wont kill your enemies.

The threat of violence - which is fucking easy even for single individuals nowadays if they want to - should NOT be the primary reason to engage in diplomacy.

I agree on that! But i refuse the way of thinking that the threat of violence has to be the first line of defense or offense.

I agree that the difference is mainly one of how much hope someone has. I still believe in the capability of most humans to come to a favorable solution when stakes are high.

I also insist on exactly this view being the most important thing to prevent atrocities, unneeded violence, and long-term conflicts with a bunch of civilian victims caught in the crossfire.

A Terrorist in my view is someone who resorts to violence when other venues of reaching goals are realistically open. For example, i would not consider Hamas an terrorist organization - Palestinians do not have any recourse left outside of violently resisting.

But for renting Spaniards, there are a lot of political and diplomatic pathways still available that have not been used for now! The legislation that did not go through because of the (fucking) separatists and conservatives will be simply pushed through in the temporary administration before the next votes, and these parties will get their receipt for shitting on the needs of the common people.

Someone advocating for violence in this situation is a fucking r* (my foreign language mind does currently not provide me with a similarily powerful word that would fit the bill, you are welcome to supply me some, thanks in advance), because it will turn the public opinion against the interests of the common people, and on top of that people that do not deserve that will get hurt (and yes, that even includes cops, even if i despise them)

Using the term Terrorist is only a though terminating cliche if you use US standards.

The talking has started, and the first vote did not get the needed result. Now they are heading into a re-election, and the administration during this period will push that legislation through without even needing the votes of the right/conservative parties if you followed the news enough. Just because the first round of negotiations does not give you the result you want, there is no need for starting violence against your political adversaries.

In fact, your thinking would be well placed in the Kremlin or similarily undemocratic institutions. Go fuck yourself. I do not converse with authoritarian fucks.

Anyone starting to shoot before talking is just a fucking terrorist and not someone you can negotiate with. Another Edit: this is true regardless of which side we are talking about.

You are sullying the sacrifices of the people who were deeply committed to put talks before violence with your utterances. There are many things you can achieve before killing your opposition, even when you do not have to means to do that at all.

I agree that resisting violently is needed in some cases. But preferring the violent case over the diplomatic one is the way you get long-term guerilla warfare and countless civilian victims that do not deserve to be wound up in your “righteous crusade”.

Diplomatic measures should ALWAYS be the first line of defense and offense. If everything else fails, go ahead and set the barricades on fire. But if you advocate towards violence before the civil way of doing things is exhausted, you are no better than any of those bastards people are fighting against.

Edit: I also want to emphasize that getting ready for a violent confrontation is not something i want to discourage. But the important discriminating factor is which of your cards you keep playing the most, and when you play them. Just playing the “violence” card is not better than anything the nazis have done.

2nd Edit: Really? The violent cowards downvoting me better give me some good reason why shooting first is the way to go.

As i said, i am down with @[email protected] 's solution if a peaceful way is not found. Don’t paint me as disparaging because i prefer talking before shooting. Any movement that prefers shooting over talking has to be shunned from the start, because it will only beget more violence even when the opposition might be ok with talks to come to a solution. All of your examples were on the side of “talking first”.

Edit: Anyone downvoting this is advocating for hurting people before discussing things. I am astounded that we have people thinking like this here.

I am aware. The right wing parties (funded by the same forces that are financing the republicans) are doing their best to fracture europe. Our systems are more resilient, and our populace a lot less brainwashed, which makes me hope that we might resist this storm. But there is no guarantee.

Big difference is that even when Europe fractures, i can’t even imagine that we might just drop the institution of the EU as a whole or go to war with each other. For the last part there is absolutely no public support in the european populace, outside of a few countries that are internally fractured already, which might cause civil war in the most tensioned countries.

Edit: on the other hand, i can easily imagine a civil war in the US over the future of the country. The culture wars crap has been forced into the minds of the easily manipulated with limited life experience, and it might take a bloody conflict to put the ghost of the confederacy finally into their unnamed graves where they belong.

I agree with your sentiment, but it wont stop the US from falling behind. The damage has been done, the US is not trustworthy anymore, and this will not change just because Trump becomes a lame duck.

We, the other countries in this world, cannot put our trust in another country that might change allegiance every few years. Trump is not a cause, he is a symptom of a deeply rotten, racist and bigoted system that we (we as in the international community) cannot accept as a risk. And we do not expect that you actually fix anything if Trump is gone - the issue with your country is that even when you stated that state and religion are to be separated, you instead installed a civic religion which is just as bad as any other religion on earth, and just as resistant to change as any other fundamentalist cult. The US are a fundamentalist terrorstate, and the current expression of this state might change in the blink of an eye.

We won’t engage with that crap if we all can help it.

Edit: i have hit some USians deep in the balls. Fine by me. It is to be expected. American Exceptionalism does not cope well with the Reality that they are the bad guys, and they have been for a long time. Putting up a mirror to their fucked up Nazi-like internal organization based on an racist ideology that they kept conserved after slavery was outlawed is an important thing.

Ok, i would rather prefer some swift legislation to prevent this from ever happening again and legal proceedings against those responsible (which would be hard to get a sentence for - i don’t think they actually broke any laws, and making new laws and sentencing people after the fact is something we all don’t want, i assure you of that).

But if that doesn’t happen, i’m down with your solution too.

I now have the image of Biden standing behind Trump with his bare back turned towards him, pulling on the back of Orange Mussolinis diaper to take a shit grinning.

SFW depiction of the situation:

Do you REALLY still need a primary care physician if you have a gallon of PCP? What is the LD50 for PCP?

Oh it would rip SO HARD through all the right wing antivaxx psychos. This time with a bit more lethality please and ideally with an easily made and distributed vaccine that also is applicable to immunosuppressed people!

You have to admit, the Isopropanol lab instructions would have made a wild party for a while! Imagine 30 students, all boiling off their own batch of Isoprop at max heat in a small lab, with only a mild chance of death due to either fire or intoxication. How much Isoprop would they have to boil off to reach the 2% flammability range? And would they be stupid drunk at that point? (Isoprop is not sooo toxic because it gets processed into acetone, which we can breathe out pretty easily - causes the fruity smell in the breath of unmedicated diabetics - but gets you drunk pretty hard very fast - source: personal experience with getting a bunch of isoprop over my clothes - got a bit tipsy before i could change)

Thanks for your elaborate answer. This is exactly what i meant, and even if the conflation of ethnicity and nation states are a worldwide thing, Israel has been working harder than any other state in the world for many decades to really drive home the point that judaism, jewish ethnicity and Israel are one and the same thing. It was to be expected that people would be pissed at jews in general when Israel commits genocide and deflects any criticism with an accusation of antisemitism.