• 0 Posts
  • 36 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 10th, 2023
  • MetaCubed@lemmy.worldtolinuxmemes@lemmy.world•As if we need another reason to switch to GNU/Linux
    32·
    3 months ago

    I edited one word of my comment because I had another reply from someone who misunderstood what I was referring to, so i clarified so there wouldnt be further confusion, not to give myself an excuse to be snarky.

    • I’ve read the article you’ve provided a number of times previously and while yes, it does indicate that there is no scientific evidence for my claim, it is limited to the UK.

    • I don’t see what interbreed-ability has to do with invasiveness?

    I don’t care about some American publication talking about cats

    • I provided 3 sources, one was American, the others were from Oxford (also in the UK last I checked) and Tillburg (Netherlands), both discussing the EU broadly

    • Here is another study from the checks notes British Ecological Society which concludes in part

    “…It is also well established that free-ranging cats pose a significant threat to biodiversity conservation and restoration worldwide, and that remedying this threat is relatively easy when compared to other drivers of biodiversity loss…”

    If you’re not going to read the evidence I’m providing, while saying I’m only providing americentric evidence, then I’m going to respectfully abandon this thread. I apologize for the snark, that was uncalled for.

    Edit: formatting only

  • MetaCubed@lemmy.worldtolinuxmemes@lemmy.world•As if we need another reason to switch to GNU/Linux
    89·
    3 months ago

    Except plastic straws aren’t actively hunting marine creatures.

    Domesticated cats are not native to north america and western Europe, and people should be more responsible in how they care for their pets, especially the ones that are invasive fucking species.

    Also, 2 things can be true. It’s possible that bird populations are being decimated by ecological destruction as well as the mass breeding and free roaming of invasive predators introduced by humans.

    Edit: clarified that I meant domesticated cats

  • MetaCubed@lemmy.worldtoNews@lemmy.world•Missouri executes Brian Dorsey for 2006 double murder after mercy bid backed by 72 correctional officers
    9·
    3 months ago

    Despite the state’s monopoly on violence, they shouldnt have the right to end their citizen’s life.

    • On average an execution costs significantly more than life in prison

    • Even with overwhelming evidence, in some cases you can never fully remove the chance that the person being executed has been wrongfully convicted. Idk about you, but even one innocent person getting the death penalty is enough to fully ban in in my opinion.

    • The majority of methods used to administer the death penalty (including in this case) are faux-humane and actually result in the person experiencing horrific, torturous pain while everyone else talks about how humane their death is

    Frankly, I’d rather have someone rot in prison for decades

  • MetaCubed@lemmy.worldtoNews@lemmy.world•Kansas Is About to Pass the Most Extreme Age Verification Law Yet
    31·
    3 months ago

    TL;DR: IANAL, however, the document this bill references to define what content is harmful to children directly, verbatim defines sexual conduct as including “homosexuality” broadly

    Okay so this bill is SB394 (linked above obviously) and it opens with the following

    Any commercial entity that knowingly shares or distributes material that is harmful to minors on a website and such material appears on 25% or more of the webpages viewed on such website in any calendar month, or that knowingly hosts such website (…)

    It carries on to later define “harmful to minors” in section h-3 as the following:

    (3) “Harmful to minors” means the same as defined in K.S.A. 21-6402, and amendments thereto.

    If we go look at K.S.A. 21-6402 we can find that it is regarding “Promotion to minors of material harmful to minors” and goes on to declare in section d-2 that “harmful to minors” refers to several things including sexual conduct (I’m omitting this full quote for brevity, you can find it in the linked document).

    Now if we look a little further down, we can see that Kansas currently defines sexual content as defined in section d-8:

    (8) “sexual conduct” means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals or pubic area or buttocks or with a human female’s breast; and (…)

    Considering all this, i think extremely reasonable to believe that this could outlaw LGBTQ+ content from being displayed openly online within Kansas

    Edit: fixed sexual conduct/content mixups