Just so. The periphery of the parks may be visited- a shared border between worlds where the most intrepid of both may briefly meet, but just as bears and raccoons are driven out of suburbs, so too should people be driven from the deeper parks.

As for the sanctity of life, it’s more of a balancing in my eyes. No life should be valued so as to cause undue stress to survivors. But I suppose my rather callous attitude is anathema to most.

Absolutely not.

Alas, I am but a blue collar shmuck without the patience to slog through theory nor the oratory skills to convincingly pass on what theory others share.

Yes? I’m not so optimistic about humans becoming interplanetary, but if it were to happen, I’d make noise to try and limit any human settlement. I’d argue that if humans want so badly to be off this rock, they can make space arcologies designed around themselves rather than inserting themselves where they ought not be and fucking up wherever they land.

Lessee… I suppose my hottest take is that no lives are sacred. I believe that human expansion into more ‘wild’ domains is a mistake and that national and state parks’ availability should be limited (geographically - you may not venture into the Deep Parks). This probably borders on some vaguely eco-fascy beliefs, and I recognize human’s inexorable curiousity and desire to explore, but you will never find me mourning a human victim of a wild animal.

Are they a frenemy then? A rival? A sibling that’s kinda strung out on drugs that you don’t know what to do with but still feel kinda responsible to make sure they don’t fuck up too bad?

In the case that the world goes back to “normal” in four years, what would even be the path forward for prosecution against this?

I mean, I won’t hold my breath, but am just curious.

Do we? For a bit maybe, but after a few years we aren’t happy when it wasn’t the “20 minute adventure” we were sold.

I find it deliciously ironic that a man named Petro has so much animosity for the petrochem industry.

Nominative un-determinism?

The time-honored GabeN technique: do good by your side and watch everyone else shit the bed.

If it was enacted now because of Trump, then he is the reason it passed.

Ergo he secured it.

He may be a piece of shit with nothing material to add, but his endorsement did move this ceasefire forwards.

While worded clumsily, I believe they were trying to say “had a Democrat become president, he would continue ‘hiding his power level’”

He can ‘make a deal’ with me as I take his real estate portfolio off his hands.

I see a bunch of other Cool Zone Media shows, but not Molly Conger’s Weird Little Guys.

Her calm cadence and thorough exploration of specific American wingnuts is fun. And as far as I’ve seen, most of the stories end with the guy dead or in prison, so happy endings.

If those in charge don’t want a ceasefire, what point is there in one? Won’t hostilities resume just as soon as eyes are off them?

Israel’s security doctrine, it’s that Israel will defend itself, by itself—and rely on no other country to fight its battles

Huh. Their track record of having US assistance in every conflict kinda flies in the face of that.

Unless by “to fight its battles” is taken quite literally to mean boots on the ground.