• 20 Posts
  • 508 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle
  • My collection kit came with sand, and it looks like yours has some sort of white stuff to use in place of the litter. I put the sand in a glass casserole dish and locked Pliny in the bathroom with it alongside a water dish for a few hours, checking on him every 20 minutes or so. This kept me from inadvertently collection Taco Bob’s pee.

    Once he finally peed, I used the little pipette (dropper thingy) to suck up the pee and put it into a container. At least for Pliny’s tests, they needed the pee pretty quickly… something like an hour or two for the test. Took it in while it was still a little warm.














  • I don’t disagree with anything that you said, but where is the line? For banks being liable for criminal activity, I believe they would need to be facilitating payment of the “criminal activity” in your example of dispensaries. But the owner of the dispensary likely still has a personal bank account.

    With Epstein, it’s highly unlikely that his billions in assets were all used to facilitate his awful sex crimes.

    My question isn’t about enabling atrocities, but more about where the line should be drawn to prevent largely innocent people from harm. Obviously, fuck Epstein and his enablers.



  • Initially, the headline upset me that the greed of these banks enabled him. But then I started thinking: do we want banks to sever ties with people based on a criminal status? What if someone is arrested for something dumb like pot, the bank closes their accounts, and now they can’t pay their bills?

    Fuck Epstein and everyone that enabled him to be a monster, and I’m sure greed was involved with the banks continuing to do business with him, but I’m also not so sure what’s correct here.