Hikuro93

I'm sure Trump will call it defiance, maybe even "illegal", in his own deranged view of his position. Imagine Europe throwing a tantrum over the NAFTA or USMCA agreements.

I however, choose to see it for what it is. Sovereign freedom of choice, and prioritization of reliable partners. It has to do with the US, and we can't deny it, but it doesn't have to be solely because of them.

This is something we should have worked on since always, given the UK is still part of the European continent and not America. Regardless of past disagreements, here's to hoping this time we learn to rely on ourselves without dependency on other world powers.

Europe has been weakened decades ago and needed assistance after being ravaged, but we can stand on our own now, without being subject to the whims and votes of another culture we don't even have say in.

This shock was needed for Europe to wake up, and Trump shouldn't be surprised that his aggressive approach will only cost him the same allies that prioritized and put the US first, giving it the global power it had until now, contrary to his "we're being taken for a ride" claims.

Thanks, and apologies as well.

I do not disagree with the original statement, since it essentially reinforces my original point that everyone should get fair treatment.

What I disagree with is with someone taking my words out of context or putting words in my mouth (I.e. saying anyone who breaks the law should be ready to face consequences, regardless of how they feel) and implying they mean something else, such as condoning the seemingly unfair treatment of the people in the article. Which is what the first commenter implied by echoing pretty much my whole point, but in an argumentative and twisted manner:

Nobody should be deported their "legality" shouldn't matter. Nobody is illegal.

No disagreements with the above statement at face value, but I don't know why deportation is even part of it since I did not mention it and it has nothing to do with what I said first. That's just jumping to conclusions for the sake of creating drama where there's no need for it.

If it's illegal and all that, yes, they should be held to standard.

But given the fact that this administration likes to slap the word "illegal" on anything they don't like, was it really? Or is it a boy crying wolf again?

If I had said only the first part of my original comment I could see how someone might arrive to that conclusion, even if there's an "if" in there, but I did clarify in the next sentence that it's nearly impossible to deem them criminals since there's no fair standard to guide it with the current administration.

Disagreeing is one thing, and I don't mind it as someone who defends everyone's right to freedom of expression, but twisting/adding words words to something I said to imply something else is just dishonest and contrarian by nature. And between two people who overall agree with each other, no less, which suggests the first commenter was just looking for some place to vent regardless of the subject.

Now the kicker. The first commenter then replies again, further clearing up that they actually meant to have an actually radical stance on the matter, stating:

yes no prisons or police should exist. "lawlessness" is a good thing.

So yes, answering your question of "What lawlessness do you feel someone was saying should go unpunished?", pretty much this. Which would be considered an extreme stance, even if they're entitled to it.

Apologies, and thank you for the clarity. I certainly can't criticize anyone for verbal subtlety being misinterpreted, that's for sure. Cheers.

Well, for me it was gradual, and luckily I did it while they were still young (<2 years old), which made it much easier.

It ranged from presenting them certain challenges like, say, having them follow me over a small-but-intimidating hole they couldn't easily jump over, or were afraid to. I'd first let them clearly communicate what they wanted (to reach me), then trying to encourage them to jump on their own (knowing they wouldn't, because they were afraid). Then I'd help them once or twice, then back to start. They'd expect me to help them again, but I'd just get closer and encourage them again, providing less and less help until no help was needed. Usually at that part they tended to whine more, but I'd only catch them if I saw they weren't gonna make. And with each step, with each improvement, make a big deal out of it - a big achievement, because it encourages them to aim higher to hear your praise.

In the case of one of them, which I got when he was a puppy retriever, he couldn't even return inside the house because of a step by the door, as his tiny legs made it difficult. He whined, and whined, I helped at the beginning, and when I saw he could do it on his own I let him be until he made it on his own. He whined so much, so loud, and 5 minutes later I see him enter the living room all proud, looking for me. So I praised him a lot, then put him outside again to cement it - again, he whined a bit, but this time he made it faster to us. Repeat again, and this time he didn't even whine, he just did it on his own and never got stuck there again.

Eventually I even got them to trust me to jump into my shoulders from a balcony about 2 meters high, to the point they love it and ask for it - this of course means extra wariness, since if I'm not entirely focused on them, and fail them when they trust me, they lose that trust much faster than they earn it - even if they don't get hurt. My closest dog now even goes on his own to the rooftop whenever one of his toys ends up there, and retrieves it on his own, and jumps around like it's not anybody's business. You don't need to go that far, but that's to say the sentiment is what counts.

Basically any exercise where your dog needs you to help her overcome any sort of mental barrier, since even though you trust she can do it, she does not trust herself. And showing her that you trust her, and that she can indeed make it, and that even if she doesn't you'll be there for her, which will gradually make her trust you even more.

Let me be clear, I didn't say "this type of lawlessness" anywhere. You're likely refering to:

I don’t agree with authoritarianism, but I won’t defend lawlessness either.

Which is not at all the same statement, and that misquote implies a very different meaning to what I actually said.

What I implied is that IF it's found that the people in that nightclub were indeed something illegal (and I don't mean according to Trump, but according to the pre-established constitution), then they should face the consequences stated in the constitution for breaking the law just like anybody else - another thing I never mentioned is "deportation", or even that they were immigrants, for that matter. It had nothing to do with the people involved and instead intended as a subtle criticism about how "at this moment we can't be sure of what's legal and what's not" because there's blatant abuse of the justice system, as my further statements in the original post reinforced.

Misquoting me by saying "This type of lawlessness" implies that I already decided they are indeed illegal immigrants, that they do not deserve due process, and that the automatic punishment for that is deportation. Which is the polar opposite of what I believe in and said.

Furthermore, interpreting any neutral statement (which mine wasn't, as I'm against these discriminatory policies, but people will read it as they want to anyway) as being pro-Trump, not caring for context or semantic nuance, is pretty extreme.

Is it violence only when there's a bullet fired, a knife stabbing or an explosive collision?

There are plenty of ways to inflict violence on another just by way of policy and letting extremists have their way with no constraints.

Would you say the millions upon millions of people who died under Hitler's policies aren't comparable to the "lots of real people" of 9/11 just because it wasn't Hitler himself firing all the bullets and setting off all the gas chambers? All violence can be traced back from the direct perpetrator to the one who gave the order, and both are accountable for it.

Is it violence only when there's a bullet fired, a knife stabbing or an explosive collision?

There are plenty of ways to inflict violence on another just by way of policy and letting extremists have their way with no constraints.

Would you say the millions upon millions of people who died under Hitler's policies aren't comparable to the "lots of real people" of 9/11 just because it wasn't Hitler himself firing all the bullets and setting off all the gas chambers? All violence can be traced back from the direct perpetrator to the one who gave the order, and both are accountable for it.

I think you should re-read. I didn't say due process was "extreme and radical". You're reading what you want to read and trying to polarize and derail this discussion, like the other commenter.

Just to state this will be my last reply to this sort of reply, since there's no discussion to be had with people who had their minds set on blind hate before even entering, which, ironically, is a rather radical stance to have by itself. I know you won't believe it and try to distort it to suit your internal frutration, but I'm on your side. Cheers.

I wouldn't call them "left stances" per say, as it's something the right also tends to do. Especially when comparing it to the current administration, which despite expecting it to be bad, I certainly didn't expect it to be this unprecedentally bad.

What I mean, mostly, is that if "you" want people to stand by you showing why the other side sucks isn't nearly enough. The people already know the other side sucks - they want something better, not more of the same but with a different coat of paint. Unless you can convince the people you are better than the other options, badmouthing the opposition won't do much to people who've seen this play out a thousand times before.

Why was Trump elected (and note, I'm not entirely convince he actually was, but that's another whole discussion)? Biden wasn't doing anything nearly as outlandish as this administration is doing, but they were still concealing Biden's mental state when it was obvious to most. Harris made sure to make her campaign pure spectacle and fanfare through celebrities and huge amounts of spending, focusing way more on appearance than on substance, while the people craved better living conditions overall. And regardless of the obvious answer, what did Trump run his campaign on? Precisely what the people were desperate to hear, even if they knew coming from him it might be bs (which everyone sees it actually was all along).

This is not just a political issue, but a cultural one as well. People don't vote for policies, they vote for colors, for their preferred celebrities, and for whoever can throw the flashiest party - and on that regard allow me a bit of hippocrisy, as in my country it's not that different, even if we do have more parties to choose from (I.e., what I'm saying isn't valid just for the US, but for many more so-called democratic nations, which irks me to the bone). In practical terms there isn't even any other option available because people won't even consider them. And on that department as long as mentalities don't change, neither will the system. And after years of this tug war by both sides pulling to themselves while badmouthing the other, one of them decided it was time to solve this impasse once and for all, by any means necessary.

The current administration, even if Trump kicks the bucket midway, is clearly not planning to leave unless forced through sweat and blood. Otherwise they wouldn't go to so much trouble and not care about their unpopularity when someone else can just come later and undo everything they did. Of course the problem runs deeper than this already long text, but if discussed at lenght this would make a book.

It's a tough situation. But in my experience, specially with small dogs who get easily intimidated by this world of giant, often noisy stuff, your best hope is consistency. And that takes time, and a whole lot of patience.

Try to let her know she always has an absolutely safe space in you, and that if she feels uncomfortable she can always seek you no matter the situation. Take time to let her calm down by herself, for her to see there's nothing wrong and she isn't in danger.

You can also try some trust exercises, though maybe at a time when she's more consistently relaxed and trustful. I did that with 3 of my dogs, 1 small and 2 retrievers, and it did wonders in terms of strenghtening mutual trust and knowing in case of an actual emergency they're less likely to panic and run off aimlessly.

Another thing is anticipating stressful situations, and preventing them as much as possible. For example, say you expect to receive visitors, and children among them. Some children tend to overstep the boundaries of pets, which can lead to the pet's panic or worse, self-defense. In this example try to pay special attention to the dog and make sure even if she's a bit nervous about the guests she's safe with you nearby. Goof around with her for a few seconds, speak in a playful tone to her, so long as you signal that everything's ok.

So, consistency. It's hardwork, and it takes a long time, but usually the best bet especially with pets who are sinking more and more into the anxiety hole. Even then it's not a guarantee, as the main disruptors will still be there pushing the other way, but still better than nothing.

Hope this helped in any way, and that you are able to counter this! Cheers.

Who said they should be deported? And if they are indeed commiting an illegal act under the written law, why shouldn't they be subject to any consequences for breaking said law?

I don't agree with authoritarianism, but I won't defend lawlessness either. These extreme and radical stances from either party are why the US is where it currently is.

I cast my doubt over the the very foundation of the act of imprisoning these people, not if they're innocent or not. Because without due process everyone is guilty until proven otherwise - and even then not really. I think you missed my entire point.