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
Squishalot
@ MyTie - As with other times it's come up in this thread, there may be better places for those discussions. In this particular instance, I don't see that particular line going anywhere productive from DoctorLore's comments onwards, so no, I don't believe it belongs in this thread, and I'd rather make that clear earlier, rather than have to fight through a page of pointlessness in what is generally a fairly productive thread.
This is not the RB, nor should it be, not in the sense of the lenience that we apply to posts made. It can wander, sure, but posts still need to have a point, and one word replies like 'lolwut' are only wandering in the wrong direction, IMO.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Monday
and one word replies like 'lolwut' are only wandering in the wrong direction, IMO.
My apologies, Squish.
Post by
gamerunknown
In this case, an 15 year old girl killed her 9 year old neighbor, and confessed to it, because she "wanted to see what it felt like to kill someone." She is 18 now, and was just sentenced to life + 30 in prison (there is still the possibility of parole). What do you guys think of life sentences on heinous crimes committed by juveniles?
I think the approach to juvenile prisoners is wholly inconsistent. I appreciate that laws must respect averages and that any cut off point is probably better than no cut off point. However, I remember reading an article about a prisoner that jail staff were desperately trying to educate (he was illiterate) in order to execute him. Of course, that wouldn't change his education level at the time of committing the crime. Either stick with "ignorantia juris non excusat" or stick with the exceptions.
In cases of psychopathy (demonstrated, physiological psychopathy), I think age shouldn't matter. I don't think parents should be held legally accountable for their children's actions any more than their children are held responsible for their parents, unless their parents contributed in some fashion (either in neglect or conspiracy).
As for the Catholics and contraceptive thing: I've been calling on the Virgin Mary to provide me with erectile dysfunction*, since I've been lusting in my own heart... Over a Nazi, no less. Pope Pius X would be proud. Anyway, if one's fealty is to Rome, one ought to hold "natural law" as the basis of one's beliefs - in other words, if the actus provides sexual gratification then the mens bene ought to be making babies. In my opinion, the rhythm method still has the product of the mens rea, which Christ decried as just as bad as the actus reum. Oh yeah, "Call to Action" members have been officially excommunicated. Their positiion was that the Church should hold a convention to discuss matters of contraception, female priesthood and homosexuality. Not even that they should change their views, just that they should discuss them. Lal.
* I hadn't prayed in months. The last time I prayed was purely selfish, I prayed for the relief of stomach pain and it worked. Very small sample size and haven't replicated the results though :p.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0210/breaking4.html
Facebook does not just kill time. Thoughts?
People are idiots.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
If they were your kids, would you take the chance?
Post by
Adamsm
If they were your kids, would you take the chance?
I...what? Really? I can't believe his kids would let that happen....
Post by
MyTie
I've noticed, just from my reading of CNN, that the bigger chance a republican has of winning the primary and challenging Obama, the more negative opinion stuff comes out on their website. If a republican doesn't have much chance of winning, CNN will write positive stuff about them, in an effort to assist them in hurting the candidates that do have a good chance of winning. For instance, much of the stuff they run about Romney in the opinion end is very negative, and has been for a while. When Gingrich was a non entity he was ignored or given positive spots. When Gingrich gained momentum, they started to tear him down. It was like they wanted to make sure the public knew as much negative stuff about the republican contender as possible before the matchup between Obama and that person, and make sure the fight was rough for that candidtate by helping the smaller candidates out and making the primary a rougher fight. Anyway, the point of me saying all that is that I can always tell when a republican is doing very well in the primary by how negative the CNN opinion articles about them are. Once those articles go negative, that person has a great chance of winning the primary. I just saw
THIS
article about Santorum, and how much he (the article claims) hates women, because he has these "stone age" views that parents should pay more attention to their kids, and not abort babies. I know, that is pretty radical and crazy of someone who is supposedly mainstream. I mean, if a woman can't abort babies, how can she expect to be empowered (sarcasm alert)? The article doesn't provide any context for the cherry picked comments, and takes them and runs with those comments. For instance, the article points out how Santorum wants to keep women ignorant and uneducated because he hates women with this line: The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong.I haven't read the book, so I don't know the context, but I can provide a hypothetical context for that line that would add an entirely different meaning:
"Government programs are largely ineffective at their goals. While many of the programs have terrific aims, the cost to government is not effective at all, when that money could be put directly to more effective means. The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong. A much more cost effective way of assisting this class of people would be to provide housing, as it is more expensive and difficult to find than college, which already has scholarship programs in place."
I could approach this by doing the same to the writer of the article that she did to Santorum:
You can tell that Stephanie Coontz has a disregard for the plight of being a single mother, because when writing an article that mentioned unmarried mothers, she attempts to trivialize the problem by writing the most powerful single influence on a child's educational success is not the mother's marital status She obviously is out of touch with how much being an unmarried mother affects the many other issues of life. Her callous disregard for this class of women, that she obviously doesn't associate with, shows that she doesn't care about the everyday trials of an unmarried mother from her very privileged position in life. How can CNN allow such a cold and uncaring woman write for them and represent their opinion article toward as serious a topic as this?
You see how that's done?
Post by
Squishalot
MyTie, not sure how the news networks operate in the US, but the ABC in Australia tends to take an underdog-friendly / incumbent-unfriendly reporting bias. There's a theory that the little people don't get enough visibility for their good stuff, and that the incumbents (or leaders in the primaries) can generate too much positive spin, and so you need a network that will provide a counter-point view of the world.
That being said, the counter-view still needs to be proper news reporting.
Post by
865056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
865056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Are you disagreeing with the part her quote you posted, MySweet? Because I have some strong feelings on that :P
MoreGloriousDawn had it right. I was just illustrating how she was taking Santorum out of context and lamblasting a one-liner, by doing the same thing to her.
And, MySweet? Is that me? Doesn't seem fitting.MyTie, not sure how the news networks operate in the US, but the ABC in Australia tends to take an underdog-friendly / incumbent-unfriendly reporting bias. There's a theory that the little people don't get enough visibility for their good stuff, and that the incumbents (or leaders in the primaries) can generate too much positive spin, and so you need a network that will provide a counter-point view of the world.
That being said, the counter-view still needs to be proper news reporting.
I understand there will be opinion articles. It's just a little irritating when those opinion articles use stuff blatantly out of context, fitting a society double standard, for an obviously biased goal. You wouldn't, for instance, find Roland Martin on CNN writing an article about how Obama hates black people, and take him out of context to show that he does. Conservatives get crucified when liberals get slapped on the wrist. FoxNews is the exception, and they crucify liberals and slap conservatives on the wrist, but liberals in society don't tolerate that from Fox, which it labels biased and unwatchable. For once I'd just like a news organization that does its best to be opinionated without being stupid. Wanna be biased? Fine. But be semi accurate about it. The writer of this article is a conniving idiot. Anyone with the intelligence to make a bowl of cheerios has the intelligence to see through her. They can do better than this.
Post by
Magician22773
Anyone with the intelligence to make a bowl of cheerios has the intelligence to see through her
Sadly, more than 50% of the American voters can't get the cereal in the bowl, just check the name on the mailbox at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Post by
gamerunknown
I agree entirely with your analysis MyTie, I've seen it in articles for the European Newsweek too. Glowing reports for Gingrich's flawed yet practical character*, then I'm sure they'll bash him later.
* I think they mentioned his support for evolution too.
Post by
Lenience
Oh my...
The woman in the mugshot slightly resembles Casey Anthony.
Post by
MyTie
Colorado student
quits choir
over a song that praises Allah. Teacher explains that the school needs more cultural education. Obviously.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I don't think it's appropriate for them to be singing ANY worship songs in public school.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.