California Court Rules That Bumblebees Are Fish
(moonbattery.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (17)
sorted by:
Retarded legal games aside, I can't say I oppose protecting bees.
For sure we have to look out for the bees. But a court ruling doesn't magically make them a fish.
Obviously not, but equally obvious is that nobody is really saying bees are literally fish. They're just taking a lazy route to a goal to avoid rewriting old shit.
Wouldn't writing something specific for bees be the logical and better way? Off all things to be lazy about this one seems retarded. Follow the normal procedure and it will last a long time, now it can easily be contested because it turns out bees are not fish.
It's also judges taking political action again.
The law, as written, does not protect bees. In order for that to change, the legislature should change the law, not the courts "interpreting" bees to be fish.
This is definitely how you want the "justice" system to work in a sane country. Never be a problem. Ever.
Judge must be Schrodinger's biologist.
You know you have too many laws, when you end up making snails to be legally fish and carrots to be fruits.
I'm torn. Protecting bees = good. State overreach = bad. This is retarded activist nonsense, even if it's for a good cause.
This is like the Roe v. Wade of environmentalism; even if you agree with the cause, the ruling is retarded and abusive to the law. If it's worth doing, do it the right way.
Right, but it could've been done by amending the law to include the phrase "or other creatures", instead of legislating more clown world.
Then again, this is the same state that repealed a law against intentionally spreading AIDS last year, so.... :clown: :earth:
Now stop questioning the science, bigot, and suck the female penis!
Some idiot will drown a bunch of bees while claiming “fish should swim!”