say-no-to-poaching

  • *Students of Westerberg are being interrogated in separate rooms by the FBI*
  • Heather McNamara: I said, that Miss Flemming had an affair with the head of the KGB by for, like, thirty years.
  • Heather Duke: (laughing) Yeah, until he got blown up! Which was actually my fault...
  • Martha: Because she was busy having choke-sex with a murderous cyborg, who then became the new head of the KGB!
  • JD: Until I built a sexier one out of illegal Soviet parts....and a corpse.
  • Heather Chandler: There was NO shortage of dead bodies around Westerberg.
  • Heather McNamara: One of which belonged to the prime minister of god damn Italy!
  • Martha: Ugh, jesus. I forgot about the---
  • Heather Duke: Giant pot farm in West Virginia--
  • Heather Chandler: And this whole other thing with the Yakuza...
  • Heather McNamara: Irish mob.
  • Heather Duke: Piracy...
  • Martha: White slavery...
  • Heather Chandler: No, actual piracy with, like, boats!
  • Heather Duke: I wanna say...Burt Reynolds?
  • Martha: Poaching alligators...
  • Heather McNamara: Smuggling Mexicans.
  • JD: Defiling a corpse.
  • Martha: Defiling a DIFFERENT corpse.
  • Heather Chandler: Kidnapping the Pope.
  • Heather Duke: (laughing) Faking my own kidnapping! ....Arson.
  • Heather Chandler: Bum fights! You know, when you pay bums to--
  • Martha: Destroy an oil pipeline in.....
  • Heather Duke: I wanna say Burt Reynolds!
  • Martha: Turkmenistan?
  • Heather Duke: When you make it look like a murder-suicide, but--
  • JD: Is it murder if they were my own clones? ...I'm seriously asking.
  • Heather McNamara: Oh, because speaking of sexual assault!
  • Heather Chandler: Which time? 'Cause for one of them I have a PRETTY good excuse.
  • Martha: Jeez, when you just list out everything Westerberg's done, it sounds.....kinda bad......

gemcat-warrior asked:

I need help with this one… There’s an couple who has two servants and their servants are very obedient and loyal.. Their servants are now given freedom by the couple, but the servants do not want to leave because they have nowhere to go and I want them to be still part of the cast.. Any thoughts?


I think this depends on what type of servants they are. In most periods and settings, servants are actually paid, though they might be paid very little.

Indentured servants, however, are servants who are under contract to work for a certain period of time, and typically they were not paid a wage, although sometimes they were. Normally, though, indentured servants worked in exchange for room and board (food and shelter). I’ve also read scenarios where indentures were created to pay off a debt. For example, let’s say a person was caught poaching game on the land of the local lord. In lieu of any other punishment, the lord might offer the person an indenture, contracting them to work as their servant for whatever period of time in order to pay off the debt they owe for poaching.

So, let’s say something like this is the situation with the servants who work for your story’s couple. And let’s say they are several years into their indenture but have a few years left to go. However, for whatever reason, the couple decides to release them from their contract. Since they have no place to go and want to stay with the couple, it would make sense for the couple to hire them on as paid servants. Alternatively, if for some reason the couple can’t afford to pay them, the couple might be willing to work for the continued room and board they have been provided up to that point.

I hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions. :)

———————————————————————————–
Have a writing question? I’d love to hear from you! Prohibited topics: portrayal of diverse characters, emotions, specialist knowledge questions (medical, etc.), “how to portray/describe,” asking for tropes/cliches; broad, vague, or complicated questions. See master list & main site for more info!

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
—  C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a made an or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
—  C.S. Lewis

swellingseas  asked:

Dunno if this is out of your expertise or anything, but I was curious about your opinion on the current Kenya Ivory burn going on. I find it incredibly frustrating that they're trying to send this idealistic message when the economics of destroying ivory means that this will only drive up the cost for ivory and hence drive up poaching, but do you know if there's a strong counter-argument against that?

I’m not an expert, but I can tell you my opinion based on the research I’ve read.

The short answer: there’s no strong evidence that ivory burns either increase or decrease demand for ivory. Focusing on the effectiveness of the burns is a bit of a conservation red herring.

The longer answer: there’s a shit ton to unpack here, unfortunately. But the main thing to understand is that the ivory being burned comes from government stockpiles. This is ivory that is already off the market, because the government isn’t selling it, and hopefully won’t ever sell it. To suggest that destroying the stockpiles is akin to increase demand by decreasing supply is almost to suggest that the right thing for the government to do would be to put the ivory back onto the market.

In theory, that almost sounds okay. Supply up - demand down, right? And if there’s a way to buy ivory legally, that should drive down prices on the black market- in theory. Here is the issue: there is practically no way to identify whether or not ivory has been obtained legally or illegally. (Legal ivory comes from products taken before bans were enacted or other such loopholes.) Essentially, anyone can slap a sticker on an ivory product that says “100% totally not poached!” In fact, many huge ivory shops in China do just this, despite the arguments of experts who say there’s no fucking way the sheer volume of ivory moving through these places is all certifiably legal.

(The U.S. isn’t exactly clean either, though; our people tend to just claim they inherited their ivory from their grandparents.)

If there was some way to sustainably harvest wild animals with 22-month pregnancies (in case you were wondering: there is not), perhaps arguments of keeping supply somewhat high would have more merit. However, even then, there are major problems. First, again, differentiating between legal and illegal ivory would still be a huge issue. Second, there’s the fact that supply is not the only factor driving up the price of ivory. In fact, it probably isn’t even the largest one- and in fact, there’s the possibility that increasing supply could also increase demand.

This becomes apparent when you look at the illegal tiger trade in China. To sum up another very complicated issue, trade in most tiger products such as tiger bone wine has been illegal in China since 1992. This greatly reduced supply, and the vast majority of medicine shops stopped carrying tiger products. However, almost immediately after the ban was put in place, several large, government-backed tiger farms were opened in China, ostensibly for conservation purposes. (Not a single tiger from these farms has been successfully released into the wild, by the way.)

In recent years, China has eased parts of the ban, allowing some farms to sell tiger bone wine so long as they don’t explicitly sell it as medicine. Now some members of the Chinese government are saying that the ban should be lifted so that trade in domestic tiger parts can reduce the pressure on wild tigers. But the evidence suggests that the effect would be the opposite. Demand for tiger products dropped following the initial ban, but has been ticking back up. And so has poaching of wild tigers, in spite of the use of captive populations- with 90% of all confiscated products destined for Chinese markets. Putting tiger products back on the market increased demand. And like ivory, there is no way to tell legal tiger bone from poached tiger bone. From an EIA report:

A lack of clarity over the use of captive-bred tiger bones has created an environment of confusion in which tiger bone wine is being produced and marketed. With 5,000-6,000 tigers in captivity there is a growing ‘bank’ of bones stockpiled by private tiger breeders and owners. Instead of being destroyed, skin and bone stockpiles are being registered and labelled, further fuelling speculation of future trade…

Contrary to pro-trade lobby assertions running a legal trade in the skins of captive-bred tigers for nearly 10 years has not stopped the poaching of wild tigers and other Asian big cats.

So: elephants. What the lessons from tigers suggest is that the most effective way to decrease poaching doesn’t necessarily lie in increasing supply of the animal parts, and in fact this can cause a net harm. Indeed, part of the rise of elephant poaching may actually have been prompted by attempts to ease the ban on ivory trade by such reputable organizations as CITES by allowing certain countries to sell their confiscated stockpiles and even legally sell some newly-acquired ivory. There’s no evidence that this worked to decrease the rising demand for elephant tusks.

Of course, again, this is a massive simplification of only one factor that drives the demand for ivory and other animal parts (and I don’t mean to imply that China is the only country driving demand, either). The point I’m trying to make is that the best way to stop animal poaching is to destroy things from the demand side. If we can convince people that ivory is worthless- because the only value it has is the one we attach to it- we should.

Sources and further reading below the cut- I highly recommend reading up on China’s captive tiger trade, it’s fascinating and horrifying.

Keep reading

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

anonymous asked:

is elena's necklace stelena or delena thing according to you? ders: "Stefan gave it to her to protect her from Damon... but after that it was always Damon bringing it back to her like this is pretty obviously more important to Delena's story than to Stelena's. Stefan gave her the necklace but she had more scenes with damon with it, she also fell in love because of it. it started out being a stelena thing but ended up being all about Delena..just like the show & every Season finale" DElusionals

Well the DErs aren’t wrong in saying that the show took an SE symbol and twisted it into a DE one because that happened, that’s why so many of us were upset about 6x02. However, the fact that the show did that isn’t really saying much since poaching symbols and “things” from other couples is sort of what DE does, if anything that’s the only original thing that they have. Pancakes were a Bamon thing, a Bamon symbol and Delena took that too. Years as in waiting for someone for over how many years was something Damon did for Katherine and now that’s somehow suddenly a DE thing.

But the thing about the necklace is that it’s fundamentally a Stelena symbol, even when Elena fell in love with Damon because he gave that necklace back to her, she fell in love with him because he gave it to her knowing what it represented to her and Stefan. Not to mention that the necklace has multiple meanings for Stelena. What it represents for Delena is simply Damon’s “growth”. He keeps giving back the necklace to Elena to show that he didn’t compel her even when he could’ve because he wanted it to be “real”. Whatever. But with Stelena, it goes beyond just one thing, it’s not simply about protecting Elena from Damon, as Stefan says in 1x06 it’s also about protecting Elena from any selfish impulse he may have, it’s about her knowing that her decisions are her own, it’s about choice and Stelena is all about choice:

More than that, the necklace represents hope. As Lexi says in 3x07, “The necklace. Ok. That necklace. At least tell me you remember how you felt about that. You found it during your darkest time. And you said, when you made it through, that that necklace represented hope.”

And Stefan doesn’t just give it to anyone:


because hope is a Stelena theme as well, first of all they say hope to each other or about each other a lot:



But they symbolize hope for each other and tell each other to have hope, the “don’t give up” is keeping hope alive:

KW’s whole “it’s about two souls, two lost souls, one human, one a vampire, who together, their love for each other brings them back to life” theme is about hope and the necklace is a physical embodiment of that so Idgaf how many times Damon gives Elena back that necklace, it doesn’t erase the multilayered significance it has for SE.

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
—  C.S. Lewis
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
—  C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
—  C.S. Lewis
A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus did would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil from Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man is the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit on him and kill him as a demon: or you can fall at His feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come to any patronizing nonsense about him being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.
—  C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity 
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
— 

Clive Staples Lewis//Mere Christianity


PREACH IT, CLIVE! 💪🏽

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
—  CS Lewis, Mere Christianity
(This book is crazy good and if you haven’t read it, I highly highly recommend it.)