This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Because it isn't based on race. It's based on crime rate. The unfortunate reality that there is a correlation is inconsequential. The correlation between communities of aligned with certain races and an increase in crime is a real problem. If the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) honestly wanted to "advance colored people", then it would address the problems that colored people face, not try to call the identification of these problems as racist. This reminds me of parents who try to coddle their kids as if "they can do no wrong", instead of playing the tough love parent that is willing to do the work necessary to actually help their kids.
Also... gerrymandering? WTF does this have to do with gerrymandering?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
gerrymandering
Biggest word that she could think of at the time?
It may have a high crime problem but have some great cultural, social things you can do there,” McNally said
Prison had a lot of culture and social things as well, but I did not exactly enjoy being there either.....nor did I feel safe.
Post by
gamerunknown
if I had to guess, the logic is that gerrymandering also discriminates against areas with black people (since the assumption is that they'll always vote Democrat, so changing voting districts from 60% black to 90% black dilutes less of the white Republican vote). It'd also contribute to the deprivation due to less local government expenditure, or in this case fewer accidental tourists. Zoning laws in the US are also criticised as being discriminatory against blacks. Not that I think those arguments are good - the case in point being North Philly. Friend of my cousin's friend was getting into a taxi there and was attacked from behind, unprovoked, hit their head on the sidewalk and was killed.
Last time we went to stay with family in PA, they gave us handwritten instructions on how to get to the airport. We ignored them and went through North Philly and saw a bunch of boarded up houses and general poverty. Pretty much like
this video
, without the carjacking.
Post by
MyTie
if I had to guess, the logic is that gerrymandering also discriminates against areas with black people (since the assumption is that they'll always vote Democrat, so changing voting districts from 60% black to 90% black dilutes less of the white Republican vote).
But the app doesn't change zones. And besides, gerrymandering is not a one party "asset". The use of this concept in this context is... well.. square peg / round hole.
Post by
322702
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Nathanyal
The internet is full.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d49sEAU5Ws&feature=g-u-u
. I need some to tell me how to make links look pretty....
Copy the link. Click the globe with the chain links on it, if you hover over it "Link" appears. From there take the link and paste it into the box that pops up. If you did it right it will look something like
Take some words and put it between the first closing bracket and the next part.
Put what you want here.
Put what you want here.
That will make it look nicer, instead of having the entire link in there.
Post by
Magician22773
Hope all the Wowhead Hockey Lovers are OK
Post by
Patty
Oh, the Daily Mail and its less than perfunctory research.
Article complaining about Emma dying 'her' dog pink.
It's not even her dog, so she can't even be held accountable. This is why I hate journalism. Isn't there supposed to be quality and accuracy control in media? How do establishments like that even survive so long, seriously. :/
Post by
Adamsm
Oh, the Daily Mail and its less than perfunctory research.
Article complaining about Emma dying 'her' dog pink.
It's not even her dog, so she can't even be held accountable. This is why I hate journalism. Isn't there supposed to be quality and accuracy control in media? How do establishments like that even survive so long, seriously. :/
Lol, media being truthful and looking for all the facts?
Post by
Patty
Oh, the Daily Mail and its less than perfunctory research.
Article complaining about Emma dying 'her' dog pink.
It's not even her dog, so she can't even be held accountable. This is why I hate journalism. Isn't there supposed to be quality and accuracy control in media? How do establishments like that even survive so long, seriously. :/
Lol, media being truthful and looking for all the facts?
It's not like the research is hard. All they'd have to do is something like go on Emma's twitter and scroll for like 10 seconds to find a post about Sophie or Darcy.
Post by
asakawa
http://www.topiama.com/r/4/iaman-exmember-of-the-westboro-baptist-church
Not sure if "news" but seems to fit better here than elsewhere and it's an interesting read.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Article
There has been a lot of public discussion about sex abuse of children being handled improperly in the Catholic church. Not to say that it's a large number, or a majority of churches that this kind of thing happens in- I'm not trying to open a discussion where people flame each other about their religion. This article is about a conviction against a church official who had evidence that a priest had molested a child, and because of orders from higher up didn't have the authority to remove him, and never reported it to the police. There have been similar stories (though none with actual convictions, I believe) that have generally led to the impression that the church does not report acts of child molestation by its priests to the police, and does not remove them from service, but just relocates them.
What do you guys think- should a church have an internal system for dealing with criminal acts by its clergy, and ignore the secular criminal justice system where they live? If you think it's ok, at what point does it become invalid if they outright refuse to remove dangerous members from stations where they will have the trust of the congregation?
My question is why didn't the parents go to the police in a lot of those cases? If someone touched my child, I'd make sure the police dealt with it regardless of who they were. Do you think that people feel a conflict of values when it comes to something like this, if their church officials are telling them to let them handle it?
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
The church supersedes everything, to me. God is the head of the church. However, since the bible doesnt condone lawlessness, nor child molestation, the cops should arrest the perp and the church should not interfere. If a religion allows such action without justice, then it is not a religion from god
On a sidenote, typinqg all this on a tablaet is hard.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Gods "henchmen" are required to follow Gods teachings, which are clear regarding the law, and also about children. If someone molests children, or assists those that do, how can they be doing Gods work?
Post by
asakawa
The now pope (Ratzinger) laid out a lot of what has since become the Catholic church's guidelines on how to deal with these matters (
De delictis gravioribus
). My understanding is that the child and family are prohibited from discussing the matter until a large number (10 rings a bell but I don't have time to look it up now) of years
after
the child becomes an adult on the threat of excommunication from the church.
For true believers this is a dreadful threat of course but I was surprised, when I read this, that more people's faith in that particular church isn't destroyed by such threats. Perhaps not faith in their god but at least in that church, surely.
Post by
MyTie
I immediately disregarded catholicism when i read about the concept of the "vicar of christ". That runs so contrary to christianity.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Part of the reason that I don't subscribe to a particular religion, even though I do believe in God, is that I have found in many that when a person teaches that religion, the line gets blurred between where God's will ends, and where that person's agenda and personal interests begin. It may not even be intentional in some cases, but I have seen it enough that I avoid organized religion, and taking the word of a person on what God wants, entirely. For me, that includes the word of the person or people who wrote down what God wants, as much as the people who preach about it. I don't think less of people who do subscribe to religion- I'm just not able to.
What particularly grates on me, though, is the amount of hypocrisy I see in the way organized religions tend to follow doctrine. I have brought it up in other threads about how two sins spoken of in the same context can have wildly different levels of response and condemnation, not because of the scripture but because of the personal feelings of the people involved. Around the world, people kill in the name of a dozen religions that preach peace, turn religions that preach austerity into money-making gimmicks selling novelties emblazoned with their religious symbol, etc.
In this case, the church's policy is written to protect the reputation of the organization, rather than the innocent, and (if what Asakawa is saying is true) threatens people's immortal souls for daring to protect their child from being molested. All common decency is just thrown away, in the name of what? PR? Protecting a "servant of God" who rapes children?
And this same church wants to chastise American nuns for spending too much time feeding the homeless and needy, and not enough fighting gay marriage. Apparently a man raping a boy is something they can handle in their ranks, and want to protect, but a man in love with another consenting adult man should be ostracized, and resources should be devoted to that before we worry about people cold and hungry in the streets.
I don't have anything against religion as a concept, but so many specific instances of lack of consistency is what I try to bring up in debates about religion, because I think people should think about how they apply their beliefs, and why, and try to see the difference between what their religion actually says, and what people use their religion to excuse.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.