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
Adamsm
And if I post what I'm truly thinking right now, I'll be banned for it.
So, I declare stalemate, and have nothing more to say to you MyTie for this evening.
Post by
Monday
And if I post what I'm truly thinking right now, I'll be banned for it.
So, I declare stalemate, and have nothing more to say to you MyTie for this evening.
I saw your last post, you know. You already DID post what you were thinking. Also note that I'd have more experience on what you said in your deleted post than you would.
Post by
Eccentrica
I claim that the Bible can only be amended by those who have been willed by God to do so. Who those are, I won't get into, since I'd rather not get into yet another religious argument of that sort, especially with your very aggressive and highly close-minded style of thinking.
I am taking statements of the church and following them to logical conclusion. If you feel that is aggressive and close-minded then take the church to task, not me. You can't claim that black is white only when it suits you.
Post by
Monday
I claim that the Bible can only be amended by those who have been willed by God to do so. Who those are, I won't get into, since I'd rather not get into yet another religious argument of that sort, especially with your very aggressive and highly close-minded style of thinking.
I am taking statements of the church and following them to logical conclusion. If you feel that is aggressive and close-minded then take the church to task, not me. You can't claim that black is white only when it suits you.
What church are you referring to?
Post by
Eccentrica
Take your pick. I'm outta here for tonight.
Post by
Squishalot
Actually, Eccentrica, you're the one making a positive claim about the Bible - the burden of proof is upon you.
You're quite right.
Rogerson, John W (2003). "Deuteronomy". In James D. G. Dunn and John William Rogerson. Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Eerdmans. ISBN 9780802837110. pages 153-154
I'm not sure that I see any reference to 625 BCE in that text at all.
There's also nothing to suggest that the Old Testament as a whole was confirmed at that point in time - in fact, the whole text has only passing references to Exodus and other parts of the Bible where it relates to specific chapters in Deuteronomy.
Anyway, as interesting as this is, it's best suited for a separate thread on religion, I believe.
On topic, I read this a couple of days ago:
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-i-reject-your-comments-20130503-2iwy7.html
In particular, I like this particular quote from the moderator:
I must mention one of the guidelines' points because it causes the downfall of many an aspiring commenter: “The general rule here is that comments should play the ball, not the man; i.e. not attack someone personally but be about the issue at hand.”
In other words, it's OK to say – even though it could be expressed more politely – that John or Jane's comment is stupid. But when John or Jane is accused of being stupid, my hovering finger will, sometimes reluctantly, press “reject”.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Adamsm
I saw your last post, you know. You already DID post what you were thinking. Also note that I'd have more experience on what you said in your deleted post than you would.
That's why I removed it; I shouldn't have said that, but once again MyTie made me angry. I really need to just ignore the things he posts.
Post by
Gone
Not to further derail the thread, but people really need to stop instantly branding any kind of disapproval against homosexuality as "hatred". It takes a lot of energy to truly hate something. MyTie saying that he believes homosexuality to be a sin, but that gay people should not be discriminated against and that he has no problem with them on a personal level, is not hatred, and branding it so trivializes what real hatred is.
Christians believe that premarital sex of any kind is a sin, but you wouldn't accuse somebody who says that as being hateful towards heterosexual couples that engage in premarital copulation.
Post by
Adamsm
Depends on how they say it Ryja; the article that was linked was a group that does engage in hate speech against the gay community.
And there are people out there who do go off on those who have sex outside of marriage and it's usually about the woman in the relationship.
Post by
Gone
Depends on how they say it Ryja; the article that was linked was a group that does engage in hate speech against the gay community.
And there are people out there who do go off on those who have sex outside of marriage and it's usually about the woman in the relationship.
I was more referencing the comment as directed at MyTie, at least that's how I read it. You have to look at the context of how it's said. Yes, there are people who do hate homosexuals and use religion to mask their hatred. But I don't think MyTie is one of them. Any problems he has with homosexuality or the gay community are on the grounds that he believes that homosexuality is a sin. If not for that I'm sure he would have absolutely no problem with gay people. The same could not be said for the type of people you often find slinging hate speech.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
lankybrit
Three snatched women freed: OMG.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/us/ohio-missing-women-found/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Cheers.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Three snatched women freed: OMG.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/07/us/ohio-missing-women-found/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Cheers.
10 years. 10 &*!@ing years. I just can't even imagine how many people are being held against their will all over the place right now. It's horrifying.
Post by
Rankkor
Walmart is Evil.
Though I think everyone already knew that.
Post by
Skreeran
Walmart is Evil.
Though I think everyone already knew that.As terrible as that must have been for that family, it's better than going to far towards the other extreme.
Post by
Eccentrica
Walmart is Evil.
Though I think everyone already knew that.As terrible as that must have been for that family, it's better than going to far towards the other extreme.
I agree, however there should be consequences to making accusations that turn out to be false.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Walmart is Evil.
Though I think everyone already knew that.
I completely disagree. If you have
ANY
suspicion of that sort of thing, you should absolutely report it to the proper authorities. Child Services employees should be trained and have experience in matters like this to properly take these reports and act on them reasonably and within the confines of the law. If they overact without proper evidence, it is not the fault of the person who made the report in the first place.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I would rather that the policy be that if you have a reason to believe a child is being abused, report it and let the authorities make sure, than for it to be if you don't have concrete proof, don't bring it to anyone's attention, even if you suspect something might be happening to a child. I hope Walmart wins the appeal.
Walmart didn't fabricate evidence or maliciously attack the parents believing them to be innocent. It wasn't easier for the company to make the report to the authorities and deal with the paperwork and the possible poor publicity, and so they were being lazy. It was more work and more risk for the company to report it to the authorities than to ignore it and let it go. The parents, who are strangers to everyone at the store, brought naked pictures of children to be developed. Yes, there are contexts where it would be innocent, but someone who isn't sure that this is the case has a responsibility to report something that might be considered suspicious, so that trained people can go and make sure that those kids are safe.
I imagine that article would only have showed the best examples of the photos to support their story that seems to side with the parents. We don't know what all the photos looked like, or if there were any that seemed odd. The employee did what they were supposed to do, which was to report something they thought was suspicious. The authorities did what they were supposed to do- they made sure the kids were safe, investigated the allegations, and then when it was shown that there was no wrongdoing the couple got their kids back.
The point of a police force is to see whether or not a crime has been committed. People call the cops not only when they have die hard evidence, but when they have enough of a reason to suspect it that they want the cops to make sure. Especially in cases of child abuse, where the kids are trained to hide it and the parents have unsupervised hours and hours with them and can usually makeup plausible excuses for casual observers, it is important that signs that something could be wrong be reported so that these kids don't suffer. If we hold companies financially liable for reports made based on legitimate concerns (which naked pictures could quite likely be), then the message sent is that you should mind your own business because the risk to you for being wrong is too high. I'd rather have one family have to spend a month under investigation because they made the unwise decision to send naked photos of their kids to a stranger to develop, then have another family suffer years of sexual abuse because everyone is too afraid and too unsure about how definite the signs are to even ask the cops to investigate.
There should be consequences for making accusations KNOWING that they are false. But there should not be for making a report in good faith that there is a reason to suspect a crime might have been occurring.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
Rankkor
I'm just putting myself on the shoes of the parents, and the ignorance of some people to automatically label any naked picture as child pornography.
Lets get one thing clear:
Pornography = Greek word porneia which means "Fornication" and graphein which means "illustration" or "Depiction".
In other words, pornography, is the depiction of sex. Or sexual acts.
Taking a picture of your kid, naked IS NOT a sexual act. Its an innocent, and harmless act. Reina and I have taked pics of annie in the bathtub, where she's just giggling and splashing water everywhere. If some sick bastard takes a look at them, and labels them as pornography, I'm gonna slug him in the jaw for being so impudent.
The store clerk revealing the photos leaped to conclusions, he saw what were essentially harmless pictures of children having fun, while unclothed, and automatically assumed the worst, causing tremendous amounts of emotional, psychological, and financial problems to a family that did nothing wrong.
This whole nudity taboo is getting out of proportion here, and is leading to witch-hunts that only leave innocent people hurt.
That's not even to mention the smear on the reputation for the parents, and the traumas this will bring on the kids, who for no reason were taken away from their parents, just because of some paranoid sicko
Both extremes are bad, I agree on that, its not ok to turn a blind eye on what could be potentially a child abuse situation, but its also ABSOLUTELY NOT ok to also leap to conclusions and auto-label any form of child nudity as pornography- Specially when the very definition of pornography is DEPICTION OF SEX.
Hell, would you label a picture of myself, in the kitchen, making a cake, while naked, as porn? Where do we draw the line here?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.