Does it make me morally wrong that I judge fur wearing in part based on how cute/cuddly I consider the animal to be? Mean rodents/weasels farmed for fur—go for it. Adorable lynx-fuck no. I guess that is the same line of thought as to why we eat cows but not horses.

“that doesn’t change the fact that society considers wearing fur to be fucked up.”
Except, no that isn’t something that is established. Fur is worn quite a bit by a broad spectrum of people and countries. Sure, we care more about how we treat animals than we did previously (which is much broader than just fur), but…

and no one should eat meat unless they killed the animal themselves, right?

Goose isn’t that popular a dish in the US, certainly not enough to support the pillow and comforter industry.

This post made my day!

arrgh..I hate typing before I’ve had my coffee. Proscribed =/= prescribed

Maybe the wording could have been better, but I think the point should be that you can make a very terrible decision but not have that decision be misconduct. If the ruling is within the proscribed limits and follows the recommendation of the probation report, it is going to be a really high bar to claim misconduct.

sure, but of course that is what it would generally say about anyone for anything. It is just boilerplate language of the minimum standard for reaching a decision.

That depends on how you couch it doesn’t it? BDS is often not presented in the way you phrase it. For example, as stated by the president of the University of Minnesota in a statement rejecting calls for divestment this past spring: “In this case, my concerns are heightened by the fact that the Global BDS movement…

Since you don’t know what a strawman is, I quit reading past that point.

I’m actually quite progressive (I wonder why you think antisemitism is only opposed by conservatives?), which means I’m against discrimination against all groups not just the ones I like. I witnessed it first had in the Stanford Senate when debating the BDS resolution. When counter proposals for divestment with any…

A lot of them reveal themselves to be antisemitic in nature through the debates that occur on college campuses in the push for BDS passage. Examples in the past year include University of Minnesota and Stanford.

it is as logical a grouping as the BDS’s platform which is just thinly veiled antisemitism

Thanks for making me feel old.

To be fair, Jack Nicholson is always Jack Nicholson on screen too.

I don’t know about that. I wouldn’t dream of contradicting Roger Ebert:

On J. Edgar: “This man was closed down, his face a slab of petulance. He was so uncharismatic that it’s possible to miss the brilliance of Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance in “J. Edgar.” It is a fully realized, subtle, persuasive performance, not…

that is not irony.

“Are you saying that you are personally familiar enough with hyponosis techniques to declare that the women and police are mistaken here?” Having done a fair amount of research on hypnosis back in the day when I was studying psychology, yes, I am saying that. Scam artists and movies portray hypnosis in a way that is…

No, the actual science on how hypnosis works does.

that he is a sadist doesn’t give him magical powers.