Wait until you find out that in many states, you can walk into a business and buy a schedule I controlled substance, and the federal government has been ignoring it for over a decade!
Reductionism is so juvenile. Now do fake outrage that muggers go to jail for knifing someone while surgeons get paid: “eiteher it’s ok to cut someone with a knife or it’s not!”
Corrupt intent is the crime. We all know this. It’s embarrassing when someone rediscovers reductionism and pretends to believe it’s a magic argument.
To me, the most important thing here isn't the lawsuit, or the goat theft, or the woman's or fair's actions at all - it's how journalism can be used to manipulate smart people into thinking one thing is true, when it's not, and what that means in a post-GPT world.
I think this type of journalism has been holding us back, as a society, and we now have the tools to fix it (or make it worse).
Are you saying that the SacBee article is misrepresenting something to "manipulate" people? What does it purport to be true that's not true?
The only problem GPT is fit to solve is an empty hard drive you'd like to have filled with random, useless garbage. But I don't understand how GPT is germane to this goat escapade in the first place.
I said GPT, not ChatGPT. But you could give ChatGPT the article, and ask it how it’s manipulative. For example, ask it whether or not the article states that there was an agreement between the buyer and the woman to sell the goat back (something that several people here have said with confidence).
I suspect GPT could write a longer, more comprehensive article (given all of the same information the journalist had access to)… and it would lead to completely different conclusions.
She sold livestock at auction. After sale she offered to buy it back from the buyer, who agreed. The auction house decided that regardless of their amicable agreement the goat needed to be killed. The auction house then utilized their connections with the police, who used taxpayer money and resources to file criminal charges, get a warrant, took the goat, and returned it to the auction house, who then killed it and fed it to people. All to teach a 9 year old girl that meat comes from animals.
Not objecting is not the same as agreeing to sell it back. If I email your office and ask if I can come take your car, and you don't respond, you didn't object, but you also didn't agree that I can come take your car.
> In her June 27, 2022, letter to Silva, Long also pointed out that she had already been in contact with Dahle’s office about his bid, and that a representative told her the lawmaker was “okay with the alternative solution of the goat getting to be donated to a farm that does weed abatement.”
If this were true, why did she steal the goat? Can’t the owner just drop the charges? These articles all seem to only tell her side of the story, and clearly she has integrity issues.
I grew up on a farm - with goats - and I can certainly understand why you would want the police involved if someone comes onto your property and takes your goats. They’re easy to steal, and hard to get back. The alternative is to round up a posse.
Also - that quote doesn't sound like he agreed to sell it back to her.
The heartless person here is the one who decided to take her daughter's pet goat to a livestock auction (where it was explicitly clear that the goat would be turned into food).
Where is the proof that the buyer agreed to reverse the transaction? If it were true, there was no reason to commit theft, as the buyer chooses what happens to the goat (not the middleman).
And of course, if they were to just shut up, that would encourage other goat thieves.
Let's acknowledge the technical theft. Because of that, the fair gets to ignore the warrant itself and slaughter the goat even when the warrant specifically called for an arbitration?
