Login

u/josephj3lly

r/GreatBritishMemes r/Irony r/therewasanattempt r/Trucks r/HardcoreNature r/nailcare r/armwrestling r/wakefield r/RandomQuestion r/WinStupidPrizes r/horrifying r/awfuleverything r/NoStupidQuestions r/nextfuckinglevel r/LoveForLandchads r/ThatsInsane r/antiwar r/FAFO r/copypasta r/MoralityScaling r/Conservatives_R_Us r/D2DSales r/PublicFreakout r/ActualPublicFreakouts r/LabourUK r/badassanimals r/reformuk r/expectedrussians r/barnsley
▲ 286 r/NoStupidQuestions

If Russia won't accept anything less than total victory, what happens when the start losing.

Realistically Russia believes that they are entirely justified in their conquest for Ukraine so to them it would feel to be totally illogical and unacceptable to lose.

So if Ukraine starts advancing with the west and Putin knows full well he will be held accountable why exactly wouldn't he go scorched earth (nukes) if he feels like the entire scenario is unacceptable and he fears for his life?.

reddit.com
u/josephj3lly — 17 days ago
▲ 476 r/horrifying+1 crossposts

The morality of feeding live animals to endangered predators to simulate hunting conditions

When managing critically endangered apex predators like Siberian tigers, some facilities release live prey into enclosures to preserve the animals' natural hunting instincts, physical health, and mental stimulation. Supporters argue this enrichment is essential to keep endangered species biologically functional for future rewilding programs, while critics contend that inflicting intense terror and distress on prey animals violates basic animal welfare principles. Balancing the conservation needs of an endangered species against the immediate suffering of individual prey:

is that moral?

u/josephj3lly — 19 days ago