It doesn’t say that the wife *made* him delete his account. He may have done it on his own accord. (She may not even know it happened at all.) But honestly, I just find it pretty funny and not really that offensive.
I’m just really not a fan of the art direction in Wind Waker or the new Link Between Worlds. I like the trend towards more intense graphics rather than cartoonish. But it’s just my opinion.
Anyone remember downloading a ROM of the BSSM: Another Story SNES RPG and playing it in Japanese (before the fan-made English translation came out)? Half the time I didn’t really know what I was doing. (I was also 11 at the time.) It’s a fantastic game with awesome storytelling, even if it’s not really canonical.
I think it would have been great if the video had been the Macy’s parade rickroll.
You should also include the part where the sentencing is being appealed on the basis that it’s not legal. “According to the Code of Alabama, first-degree rape, a Class A felony, would have a sentencing range 10 to 99 years in prison. Second-degree rape, a Class B felony, has a range of two to 10 years in prison. During sentencing, Woodroof officially gave Clem 20 years for the first-degree rape charge and 10 years for each second-degree rape charge. However, he then said he was “splitting” the sentence and required that Clem serve two years in the community corrections program and three years on supervised probation. The Code of Alabama says a judge has the discretion to “split” a sentence between prison, community corrections or probation, according to findlaw.com, which reads: “…the court may sentence an eligible offender as defined in this section directly to any appropriate community-based alternative provided, either as a part of or in conjunction with a split sentence as provided for in Section 15-18-8, or otherwise as an alternative to prison; or as a condition for a defendant to meet in conjunction with probation; and under such additional terms and conditions as the court may prescribe.”
(http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/11/victim_says_shes_livid_rapist.html) The Code of Alabama Section 15-18-175: (b) The following offenders are excluded from consideration for punishment in the community: (1) Persons who are convicted of offenses as listed in subdivision (14) of Section 15-18-171. The Code of Alabama Section 15-18-171: (14) EXCLUDED FELONY OFFENDERS. One who is convicted of any of the following felony offenses: Murder, kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, arson in the first degree, trafficking in controlled substances, robbery in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, forcible sex crimes, lewd and lascivious acts upon a child, or assault in the first degree if the assault leaves the victim permanently disfigured or disabled. (http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/codeofalabama/1975/coatoc.htm)
Insulting people is never the way to go. The people here are neither weak nor sad. Extrapolating arguments in defense of hunting for food to hunting for lions is not at all sound. You’re free to read the four posts I’ve made already, but I’ll outline the basics for you here. For starters, your claim that humans are at the top of the food chain and can just kill whatever we want in whatever quantity we want is incredibly short-sighted. If humans simply killed every animal they felt like, we’d destroy the planet and all of the biodiversity it has. There’s a reason the U.S. has a Fish and Wildlife department and employs game wardens. There’s a reason they give out hunting licenses and prosecute violators. This is so that when you want to take your grandchild out to hunt his/her first moose, there will be moose for that child to hunt. As a hunter you should understand this concept. Without proper control (licensing), the population of deer/elk/moose/etc. would be destroyed and there would be no hunting in the future, much less genetically diverse and sustainable game populations. Assuming that licensing works the same for lion hunts in Africa (it doesn’t) is also incorrect. There are multiple reasons the lion population has dramatically dropped in the last 30 years, and hunting contributes to this massive decline. There is a fundamental difference between killing prey species and killing an apex predator. Lions have no natural predators, and please don’t try to claim that a human with a high-power rifle is a “natural predator,” they’re not. They die from disease, old age, starvation, infanticide, or dominance struggles. Adding humans alters the balance and creating distortion in the lion population and therefore in the ecosystem they live in. Prey species, such as deer/elk/turkey/moose/etc. have natural predators that would also kill them, such as wolves. In this way, when we hunt those species, we replace the natural predators in the culling of the population, thus helping to maintain the natural balance. Again, this is regulated by the U.S. government to make sure the population isn’t decimated to the point that recovery within a season (or at all) is impossible. Regulation doesn’t work the same in Africa. You can pay for a license and as long as the check clears, go ahead. There is no effort to control the population, to regulate breeding to ensure genetic diversity. It’s just greed.
Actually it makes perfect sense when you think about it, though I’ll refrain from insulting you. (It’d be nice not to call people idiots when you’re asking for an explanation about their opinion. Especially when I outlined it three times in the comments already.) When people hunt animals such as moose, deer, elk, turkey, etc. they’re doing it primarily to consume the products that that animal’s body will produce. Be it meat or fur or what have you. Those animals are also “prey” animals, meaning that in nature, they would also die due to being hunted by other animals. In this way, humans replace predator species such as wolves or bears in culling the deer/elk/etc. populations. By carefully regulating and licensing hunting operations in the U.S., the Wildlife and Fish & Game services/wardens can ensure species survivability both in terms of genetic diversity and future hunting prospects. The reason people are complaining about this is because:
1) Lions are apex predators and keystone predators. Their existence in a habitat helps regulate the existences of the other species in that habitat. For example, if you eliminate the lion population in an area, you may find an overpopulation of ungulate species which then consumes too much of the plant life and eventually collapses the entire food chain. Look up the U.S. wolf reintroduction in the National Parks. It’s helped create a more stable and biodiverse ecosystem. Nature exists in a balance, and by removing key parts of the food chain humans unbalance the cycle. 2) Much trophy hunting involves taking the “trophies” and leaving the rest of the carcass to rot. There is no explanation in this specific scenario, but it is a rampant problem in the trophy hunting industry. Many people, including myself, feel that wasting any part of an animal you kill is a waste of life. 3) The lion hunting business in Africa is rife with corruption. People here keep talking about how she had a license and it was legal. Well, if you pay enough money you can get a license pretty easily. And as everyone knows, just because something is “legal” doesn’t make it right. The reality is that much of the money is absorbed into governments or taken by the foreign-based independent outfitting operations, rather than helping to sustain the lion population (conservancy), as proponents would have us believe. 4) The lion population has declined dramatically in the past 30 years alone. Although there are more reasons than simply trophy hunting, it has not helped the cause whatsoever. People try to argue that the influx of money helps conservation efforts, but with a flawed and corrupt system, this is not the case at all. (See above) 5) Lions do not have any natural predators. They die of old age, disease, dominance struggles, infanticide, or starvation. This is what makes them apex predators. By removing them from the equation, we face the consequences of throwing the entire system out of whack. As I stated above, when you kill deer/elk/turkey/etc. you take the place of the natural predators they have (wolves, bear, etc.). This is not the case with lions. And back to the infanticide: when you kill an alpha lion that heads a pride, the new alpha will kill any of his previous competitors cubs. Constant replacement of top males prevents genetic diversity and significantly lowers the number of lions over generations. 6) Trophy hunting is counter-evolutionary. When hunters seek trophy animals, they kill the strongest and fittest males. This is damaging to the further propagation of the species. Those strongest males’ cubs will then die when a new male takes over. It decreases genetic strength and weakens future generations. (Besides the simple reduction in population.) 7) Many private reserves have arisen where they breed lions specifically for hunting. This has caused problems with inbreeding and a lack of genetic diversity. If this continues, the entire species will suffer and eventually succumb to debilitating genetic defects after many generations. These are the primary reasons most people find this disturbing where they (myself included) don’t find hunting deer/elk/etc. upsetting or wrong. Hopefully I’ve enlightened you.
You imply that all lions live on reserves. This is not true. There are wild lion populations, although they’ve been heavily decimated in the last few decades alone. “Estimates of the African lion population range between 16,500 and 47,000 living in the wild in 2002–2004, down from early 1990s estimates that ranged as high as 100,000 and perhaps 400,000 in 1950.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion#Population_and_conservation_status) You do realize that this phenomenon is destroying a huge swath of the lion population, yes? Your argument would be sound if there were strict rules in place and guaranteed protections. But there aren’t always. In many areas it’s “pay a ton of money & do whatever you want.” “Despite the wild claims that trophy hunting brings millions of dollars in revenue to local people in otherwise poor communities, there is no proof of this…The money that does come into Africa from hunting pales in comparison to the billions and billions generated from tourists who come just to watch wildlife. If lions and other animals continue to disappear from Africa, this vital source of income—nonconsumptive tourism—will end, adversely impacting people all over Africa.”
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/08/130802-lions-trophy-hunting-extinction-opinion-animals-africa-conservation/) The reality is that there isn’t a threat of “overpopulation” as you claim. There is an unsustainable number of lions hunted and killed each year, causing a tremendous decline in the viable population. This, coupled with debilitating inbreeding on private reserves is a serious issue, and is also detrimental to the species. Here is also a study looking into captive-lion hunts versus wild-lion hunts. It also discusses the impact of the captive-lion hunting industry, as well as the increased demand for hunting wild lions. “The continental African lion (Panthera leo) population has declined by at least 30% in recent decades, while the species’ geographic range has shrunk by as much as 82% (IUCN 2006). Key causes for the decline include conflict with pastoralists over livestock depredation, habitat destruction and fragmentation, and the loss of available wild prey (Ray et al. 2005). In addition, excessive trophy harvests have emerged as a threat in some areas (Packer et al. 2009).”
(http://www.panthera.org/sites/default/files/Lindsey-et-al.-2012-Possible-relationships-between-the-SA-lion%20hunting%20industry%20and%20the%20hunting%20of%20lions%20elsewhere.pdf) There have been suggestions to guarantee that the lion population is minimally affected by trophy hunting, including only hunting males over the age of six. Although this is still difficult, as checking the age may require the animal to be dead already. (Infanticide also contributes to steep declines, as males replacing former pride alphas will kill the previous male’s offspring.) Unfortunately, much of the industry does not have these requirements, or fails to enforce them. So while (after reading about this topic more thoroughly) I can understand the idea of trophy hunting as a means of securing conservation funds, I also see a terribly flawed and corrupt system. Basically, the governments and independent agencies are going crazy with the money, and damned be the long-term sustainability of the lion populations. Studies and scientists have offered help in preventing unsustainable offtake, but it would appear only Tanzania has implemented these regulations. (http://www.cbs.umn.edu/sites/default/files/public/downloads/Effects%20of%20trophy%20hunting%20on%20populations%20of%20lions%20and%20leopards%20in%20TZ.pdf) It is also worth noting that despite the implementation of various tactics to prevent over-hunting, the lion population continues to steadily decline.
To Diana Elena Carioca in Facebook comments: Hunting only helps the environment when you are hunting animals that are naturally culled by predatory species. Deer are hunted by wolves and other predators, depending on what part of the world they live in. Lions are NEVER hunted by ANY predatory species because they are APEX predators. Your hunting a gemsbok is absolutely fine. Why? Well, for starters it is a prey species. Second, you proceeded to then use the entire kill in some form or fashion. Good on you. You’re a responsible hunter. But please don’t just knee-jerk defend ALL hunting. As a hunter, you must understand the difference between killing prey and killing predator. I understand that there are a lot of people who hate all forms of hunting, and you likely find yourself having to defend your actions, despite the fact that there’s nothing wrong with hunting prey such as antelope, deer, etc. But your argument cannot be extended to apex predators, because that’s not how nature works for predators. Your argument makes ABSOLUTE SENSE when taken to mean any form of hunting for prey animals. I 100% support hunting game for food, fur, etc. I do not support the unsustainable hunting of apex predators with man-made weaponry for the simple reason that it is unnatural and unbalancing to hunt such animals. Your argument makes NO SENSE whatsoever in this context for the simple fact that the lion “niche” does not need to be “protected” by killing the lions. That would imply that something other than A) old age/disease B) dominance struggles or C) starvation is ever responsible for the deaths of lions in nature. Lions have no natural predators. They are apex predators. Humans that prey upon these apex predators with high-power weaponry defy nature and do NOTHING to protect it. So while I can understand your confusion, because you’ve obviously extrapolated an argument to defending normal hunting to this situation, I must point out the obvious flaws in your statements.
People aren’t complaining because she hunted. They’re complaining because of what she hunted; a vulnerable apex predator. Apex predators are not animals that have natural predators of their own (hence, apex). Those species and the environments they exist in possess unique traits that control the population. When you hunt apex predators, you create potential problems with the entire life cycle of an ecosystem. No one is breeding lions for the wild. The lion population must therefore be controlled by the natural limitations of the species and the environment. Please look up what happened when they reintroduced wolves in the national parks in the U.S. It helped with the plant population. Really? Yes. Because the wolves culled the deer population, which had exploded over the years and had been overeating the local flora. It’s nature. We unbalanced it, we’re trying to re-balance it. Why don’t Galapagos tortoises take over the planet with their incredibly long lives? I don’t know, maybe their reproduction patterns? High predation of their young? People (generally) don’t complain when you hunt deer, rabbit, etc. because A) they’re prey animals and B) they’re plentiful. And they’re plentiful in part *because* they’re not predators. This is how nature works. (We also give out hunting licenses to prevent over-hunting prey species and to ensure their future survival for the sake of both the ecosystem and future hunting.) Humans that hunt apex predators for pride and bragging rights are ignorant of the full implications of their actions. They create unbalance. The animals are apex predators for a reason. They are needed in their ecosystem for a reason. If you want to go hand to hand with a lion, I’m more than happy to support your decision. But you don’t, you add a high-power rifle. You cheat to defeat what nature has made some of the most powerful animals in the world. To defy the natural balance and cycle of the ecosystem. People assume that “conservancy” works the same around the world as it does in the U.S. That hunting licenses work the same everywhere. That just isn’t the case. Just because they hand out licenses when you shell out enough cash doesn’t mean that the group/location is really doing much (or cares much) about conservation of species the way that we do in the U.S. It’s absolutely ignorant to assume everyone works the same way the U.S. does.
I’m pretty sure when they negotiated to pay the Federal Gov’t in the first place in order to open the parks, there was no specific stipulation that they would be reimbursed whatsoever. If there was, then sure, they should be refunded. Otherwise, it’s up to the Feds to decide whether or not they get the money back. Just because it was done previously is no guarantee of future reimbursement.
It’s like SmarterChild’s creepy obsessive cousin who can’t stop telling you how awesome such-and-such band/celebrity/brand/etc. is.
Wow, this was not the backstory I was expecting. What a dick. I thought he was showing solidarity with his daughter against someone else who had slut-shamed her. Instead he’s the one being a douche. Bravo, assbutt.
Alternatively, the SectumSempra person may have dermatographia.
Kind of reminds me of an upgraded “lemonade stand.” Now I just need gun dealer to bring me back to my calculator gaming days.
Meanwhile, the PC laughs at their childish antics.
Does anyone else think that the “child” in #17 is dressed questionably? It makes me think of some creepy role-playing.
This isahorrible example of “data analysis.” For starters, never forget that correlation ≠ causation. Now, let’s turn to the accepted disparity between A) actual incidences of rape B) reports of rape C) rape convictions. Your claim that “the states with the most severe punishments for rape also have the highest rates of the crime” isagross leap from reality. The data could (and more likely) reflect that states that ostensibly take rape more seriously also have the highest reporting and conviction rates. Therefore you see the correlation of harsher punishments with reports (and subsequent convictions) of rape. tl;dr
Stop pretending you understand data analysis and social science. You’re contributing to the dangerous spread of misinformation.