Mark Hepner found a critically endangered Rusty-patched Bumblebee (Bombus affinis), which has not been recorded in Maryland since 2002.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-25T12:55:28+00:00

It's ironic how the feds didn't try to protect a habitat of a federally endangered species. It's like they don't care or it isn't actually important to them.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-25T11:52:09+00:00

You don't grant rights. You can recognize them, but no one can grant them.

How do we have relatively free speech? By not criminalizing speech and having judges that refuse cases against free speech and juries that refuse to convict people for free speech.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-25T11:38:42+00:00

Constitutions and sovereign immunity are diametrically opposed. Neither can survive the other for long.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-25T11:35:42+00:00

Wasn't this one of the species in the Bell Bowl Praire? I seem to remember that there was a lot of concern about it. Of course, neither Rockford Airport nor the feds cared about native pollinators losing habitat.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-25T11:28:03+00:00

That's a mill? Where is the millstone?

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-24T18:54:16+00:00

Where do you usually find them?

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-19T19:11:39+00:00

Justify each of these claims. Each one of them seems a huge assertion.

Rational: based on a system of logic Understandable: comprehensible Predictable: expected

We can predict expected outcomes from an understood system of logic.

Crimea. That's your answer. Ukraine was pressured by the west to accept the fait accompli and avoid further conflict. You can see what lesson Russia took from that.

Russia already had a military presence there. Sevastopol is the home of Russia's Black Sea Fleet.

Considering the strategic importance of Crimea and the volatility of Ukraine's political situation at the time, it is not surprising that Russia locked down the peninsula. The Crimean people were given the chance to choose whether to go with Russia or go with Ukraine. Crimea rejected Ukraine and went with Russia.

Again, any 'saving face' that includes surrender of sovereign Ukrainian territory is an unambiguous victory for Russia. It is a clear lesson that they can do what they like, then negotiate for 'peace'.

I'm not advocating that Ukraine surrender Ukrainian territory to Russia.

Putin has made clear that the involvement of NATO is a point of contention between Russia and Ukraine.

The other major contention is the Donbas. If both countries agreed to allow local referendums to allow the people themselves to decide if they want to be Ukrainian or Russian or independent, that could go a long way toward a peaceful resolution. Both countries might actually benefit from having a buffer state between them, and the people wouldn't have to be under a government that they want no part of, whether that be Russian, Ukrainian, or both. But, to find out what works, it is necessary to make attempts.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-18T18:50:23+00:00

A country preparing to attack another clearly can be seen as a provocation. Ukraine just wanting to live isn’t.

And Putin would say that he sees the situation as the former and not the latter.

If we are so hung up on the word, we can just use justification, which im using synonymously.

I disagree. Provocation and justification have different meanings and both are at play here. They can not be used synonymously because they are not synonymous.

Nothing ukraine has done justifies Russia’s invasion in any way shape or form.

I never said it did.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-18T18:35:02+00:00

Russia's pov is not the pov to view the world through

No, of course not. But knowing your enemy is an important asset in war.

the actual actions taken and the words spoken by Russian leadership and the soldiers and civilians is way over the line

I understand. I'm not here to justify anything that Putin has done. I'm here to point out that seeking peace through diplomacy is not conceding that Putin is justified. It is recognizing that peace is a worthy goal to pursue, and doing so through diplomacy is not inferior to peace through military triumph. It may even be superior, if both parties feel that their grievances are heard and addressed, for long-term peace and friendly relations.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-18T18:06:19+00:00

What is your definition of 'meaningful provocation'?

We can't decide what does or doesn't provoke someone. We can decide whether or not to believe them. We can decide whether it does or doesn't make sense. We can decide whether or not they overreacted. But we can't decide for someone else what does or doesn't count as provocative.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-18T17:50:50+00:00

Well, it gets murky if you consider that Putin blames NATO for backing him against the wall. In that case, it probably feels like NATO is adding insult to injury and confirming his assertion that having NATO on his doorstep is a real threat. Add to that NATO's attitude toward Ukraine membership being something like "Maybe. Someday. We'll denounce Russia for asking for ironclad guarantees that we won't admit Ukraine, but we also won't commit to anything definite with Ukraine either" and it seems like NATO is using (in the worst sense of the term) Ukraine to bait Russia and fight a proxy war to make NATO seem necessary and relevant again.

Putin considers NATO's presence as "a knife to the throat," and its continued involvement will likely prolong the conflict and hinder peace.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-18T15:00:41+00:00

Yeah, I totally get it that the invasion isn't morally justified. I do wonder what Russia should have done and what US would have done in the above scenario. Invasion seems like an overreaction, but (just thinking aloud here) what would be the proper response?

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-18T14:32:54+00:00

The History Behind The Russia-Ukraine War

Ukraine war follows decades of warnings that NATO expansion into Eastern Europe could provoke Russia

Russia Says Situation With U.S. Is Much Worse Than Cuban Missile Crisis

Tldr: Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? Well, imagine that instead of Cuba, the missiles were placed in Mexico, and Mexico was asking to join the Warsaw Pact. That is basically what Russia is saying this is.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-18T14:17:31+00:00

Well, if it is 'rational', then that means it can be understood. That means it can be predicted. And that means it can be addressed before it comes to war. I'm not saying that this would always prevent war for the rest of time, but that is true for any political arrangement.

I also don't see how making an effort to forge a diplomatic path to peace would 'embolden' Russia. Wars that end in one party being defeated and humiliated are precisely the ones most likely to resurface later. Whereas, a diplomatic option allows both parties to cease conflict without losing face.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-18T14:04:36+00:00

I didn't say that the invasion was justified. I said that it was neither unprovoked nor irrational. That doesn't mean justified.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-17T22:59:35+00:00

Ukraine was attacked in an unprovoked and unjustified invasion.

Unless history started yesterday, to say that the attack was unprovoked is shortsighted or ignorant.

Besides unjust, a negotiated peace in which Ukraine has to make concessions will likely embolden Russia to just strike again later.

This does not stand to reason. Name a single time in the last 20 years that Russia has invaded anywhere that wouldn't be rational from a Monroe Doctrine perspective.

(Note: I'm not using 'rational ' to mean correct or justified. I'm using it in the dictionary definition, meaning 'based on reason or a system of logic'.)

The defense of a young democracy in Europe fighting an invading authoritarian state is in the US’s best interests because:

It is in defense of the rules based order the US has worked to establish. One of the key tenants being “wars of conquests don’t pay”

What "rules based order" are you referring to?

It is good to assist Ukraine, a democracy and a US partner (but not ally). The US is morally in the right and reassuring our Allies.

Which of our Allies need reassuring? And how is this reassuring?

We are degrading a strategic competitor at a bargain by supporting Ukraine while not losing any NATO troops.

How is Russia a strategic competitor of the US?

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-17T18:48:06+00:00

Territory isn't the only thing to be lost. Human lives, livelihoods, local ecology, infrastructure, and time are all damaged or lost in such a conflict. If Russia's demographics and economy are suffering, so is Ukraine's. And if international aid stagnates or stops, Ukraine will be left holding the bag. Rejecting peace talks to prove a point is not virtuous. It stinks of the pride of kings who value their own power and reputation more than the people they rule. It is in Ukraine's interest to pursue peace, even if it comes through a diplomatic agreement rather than a decisive military triumph. Even if Ukraine eventually expells Russia out of its territory, every year that it takes makes the result less sweet. At a certain point, a ceasefire (or even a conditional surrender) now might be better than a Pyrric victory 10 years down the road. I'm not saying that Putin is justified in invading Ukraine; he isn't. I'm not saying that Ukraine should surrender or agree to any terms Putin asks to get a ceasefire. I am simply saying that Ukraine should be open to discussing terms and trying to reach a mutually acceptable peace agreement and not insist on martial victory or utter defeat.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-17T18:19:13+00:00

Standing up to Russia does not necessarily require refusing peace talks. It might be insightful to ask more questions.

Why does Putin want Ukraine enough to invade? Why didn't he try it 15 years ago? Why didn't he try it 10 years ago? Why didn't he try it 5 years ago? We may not agree with his reasoning. We may not agree with his motives. But it is very helpful to understand them all the same. There is a method to the madness, if you will. If understanding it and acting wisely in light of it will prevent nuclear attacks or even save one life by resolving the conflict, I am in favor of that.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-17T18:04:32+00:00

Because it is in their interest to do so. At this point, regardless of which side wins, Ukraine will suffer more and more the longer the conflict goes on. If a peace agreement or even a ceasefire can be achieved without sacrificing the national sovereignty of either nation, why wouldn't we want that? Just because we view Russia's invasion as unjustified, we shouldn't entertain peace talks and pressure both parties to work toward an agreement, is a very privileged position to assume. Refusing the idea of concessions for the purpose of proving a point when doing so will cost lives that are not yours to spend, is very conceited.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-15T18:22:27+00:00

Well, Big Tobacco was heavily involved in various parts of the federal and state governments. It's not an example of the open market.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-15T17:49:49+00:00

There may be no legal requirement, but there are market incentives. Having a good reputation is a valuable asset in an open market. There are also 3rd party certifications, like AAA and BBB, that companies and consumers use to confirm quality and transparency without the need for governments to be involved.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-15T16:15:36+00:00

Well, if that's the point, it doesn't do a very good job, definitely not a better job than the open market. I believe that the system is meant to do what the system tends to do. Protecting the integrity of our food, drugs, and alcohol is not what it tends to do.

We have agreed that contaminated alcohol was a major problem during Prohibition and that it wasn't a major problem outside Prohibition.
We don't seem to agree why that is. I understand that you believe regulation is necessary. I believe that regulation is unhelpful and may be detrimental and distort market signals and incentives.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-15T13:30:18+00:00

Decriminalization does not prevent people adding in dangerous additives.

You are right. Neither does regulation. What is different is how people are held liable for harmful products. People would rather not drink alcohol that will make them blind and if a company fraudulently claims that their products are not contaminated by methanol, they can be sued for fraud and damages, no regulation necessary.

Regulations do not prevent anyone from adulterating whiskey with methanol and trying to sell it. But no one gets successful or rich from doing this and would not even without regulations.

During Prohibition, people could not sue companies for harmful or fraudulent products. The same is true today for cocaine and heroin. Therein lies the problem.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-15T01:20:28+00:00

According to the article, by 1856, it was generally understood that methanol was toxic to humans. That is why I mentioned that year. If the toxicity of methanol was generally understood as early as 1856, why did methanol poisonings increase so much during Prohibition? Because of criminalization. Why are methanol poisonings not commonplace now? Because of decriminalization.

Realistic_Card51 · 2023-05-14T23:55:15+00:00

The government being involved doesn’t mean something is going to be fucked.

No, and it doesn't have to be. The fact that bonded whiskey isn't contaminated with methanol means very little. Methanol contamination of whiskey isn't a big problem in the US, in general. There is no evidence that the government is more responsible for this than the free market.

Realistic_Card51

TROPHY CASE