Total posts: 2,049
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Thank you for dealing with the "evidence" part. I didn't have the patience lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
a republican supporting amnesty, free trade, endelss wars, etc
Republicans are known to be "war hawks" comparative to their liberal counterparts; they are very pro use of military and pro defense. I don't think anyone is for "endless" wars. Do you have any proof that the GA Secretary of State is for endless wars or amnesty?
The Republican Party has historically been for capitalism and free trade. In fact people who were NOT for these things were called "RINOs." People thought the Tea Party (which is for 100% free trade) was going to take over the GOP just a few years ago, so why you think they are not real Republicans is curious. Please explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What makes someone a "RINO?" As in what specific policy positions?
Created:
Posted in:
Out of curiosity, did anyone happen to watch Fox News the last few days? I missed it but I was curious to hear Tucker Carlson explain how the media is misrepresenting this call.
Created:
Posted in:
oH aS iF tHe DeMoNrAtS aRe AnY bEtTeR?!
There, now none of you have to waste time making that irrelevant point.
Created:
Posted in:
As you all know, on Saturday our dear leader President Trump had a telephone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Now because Lindsay Graham had previously asked Raffensperger to throw out legally cast ballots, Raffensperger decided to record the telephone call with Trump as a way to protect himself from the president's inevitable lies and allegations. On this call Donald Trump was secretly recorded trying to pressure Raffensperger to throw out votes for an opponent and “find” votes for himself. This conduct is impeachable, illegal, and some suggest indicative of a coup.
Cue the “everyone does it - he just does it for the right causes” brigade.
The audio of this phone call is like telling the Nixon tapes to "hold my beer."
Trump brought up many outrageous things, such as believing he won the election because his rallies were bigger and making up random numbers and accusations that are not backed by a shred of evidence. Virtually everything he said on this call can be fact-checked as brazenly false and/or completely unsubstantiated. For instance he said 139% of the population of Detroit voted; only 51% did. You can go through line by line and it's actually painfully funny but also tremendously sad to see the POTUS saying these things in all seriousness.
What's even more sad: despite overwhelming evidence that President Trump is nothing but a lying, selfish egomaniac who doesn't care about the harm he does to America, its institutions, people or any of its political processes, Republicans still have their own egos too wrapped up in mindlessly championing anything he says and does to hold him accountable for a single thing. It is both scary and pathetic. Nearly 70% of Republicans still believe there was election fraud despite NO evidence, and now even with yet another call catching the president engaging in illegal activity for his own self-aggrandizement, they still won't accept he has done anything wrong or admit he lacks the competence and character for the office he holds.
If I were the GA Secretary of State, I would have asked the President flat out to just be clear "What are you threatening me with, and how much of a bribe can I expect if I cooperate?" Even then I don't think Trumpkins have the brains or balls to call out their lord and savior for criminal conduct. Ask yourself just how many of these shakedowns Trump has committed that weren't recorded and leaked. Although I guess if you can stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose any voters, then what's a little shakedown here and there on occasion?
The whole party (I'm exaggerating just a little) is beholden to this man's fabrications. It is sick. Previously some thought Trump would be the "chemotherapy" to fix the sickness within the GOP, but it's become clear that has backfired tremendously. The party is getting sicker. What could be the remedy to salvage the few remaining sane people within?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
What do you think?
There are 4 people I have concerns about atm, and not one who stands out more than another. I'd want them all to respond to me before deciding who to lynch and I doubt that's going to happen.
I really don't mind not lynching DP1, but I do think it's stupid that people didn't push for more claims in a themed game where the mod specified there were no fake claims given. Again I know I wasn't online until today so some of that's on me, but damn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I'm not voting that1user. He/she hasn't been online in 6 days so "inactivity" gives us no information about their affiliation. Bullish confirmed he would replace inactive players. And fwiw, it's kinda funny making a big deal about the inactives yet after I had posted today there was little to no discussion. So how much are the "inactives" really to blame for lack of productive conversation on DP1? Just something to think about as I know I will always get called out for not posting on weekends. I don't really like being online at night either so I'm about to go lol. I mostly stay online from 9 am to 5 pm during the week when I have to be at the computer for work. I'll probably just VTNL since that's where this day phase is headed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Crimes are crimes. To focus on a theme for no reason and draw conclusions based on it is stupid. I've maintained this position that theme analysis is pointless in these types of games
Aside from MCU Mafia, every single themed game I've ever played in had a theme split so statistically speaking this one does as well. The OP clarifies that scum wasn't given fake claims. Ergo if the mafia doesn't know what the theme split is, it could be very easy to catch scum once we figure out the split (this is why I just said in the last End Game that going forward I will not struggle to find a fake claim as scum - the mafia can lose right off the bat simply by claiming a wrong character if pressured early).
If the mafia does know the theme split and that's their hint, it would still narrow down the list of crimes they can choose from and increase the likelihood of them accidentally CCing someone else if pressured early. There's a limited number of roles for them to fake claim. For instance it seems very obvious to me what drafterman is claiming because there's only a small list of town roles with mafia equivalents that sound like crimes.
So if there's any game where you're likely to catch scum with theme analysis it's this one where no fake claims were given. LOL @ town not asking for a mass claim the one time the mod actually clarifies there were no fake claims and mafia has a pretty small selection of options (they can't even fake claim vanilla cuz it's role madness). I can't really say anything or get too pissed cuz I wasn't online until today but man ya'll suck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
Once again I am wondering the point of you asking me questions about my win con when #1 the OP clarifies that no win con = town, so even if I were scum I'd know how to answer this question and #2 there has already been discussion about how detailed or explicit the roles are to characters. Deciding to go into a deep dive about my PM analysis therefore seems like a waste of time at this point, or a way to look like you're investigating something thoroughly when scum is not going to get caught with these questions. You should have done this with people that posted much earlier. Explain your reason for going along with this line of questioning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@whiteflame
Anyone voting that1user knows they are wasting their vote at this point. Pick someone else. How about Pie?
Created:
Posted in:
Actually if scum = law enforcement, I assume the mod would have given fake claims of some kind. So in that case I could see theme analysis being useless (I tend to argue this) but Supa pointing it out seems odd. He basically posted there's no use in focusing on theme and noted the characters are related to roles which seems obvious, especially after drafter already said that in post #31. A lil fluffy for my liking but not sure if it warrants getting a claim from him over Pie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@warren42
@oromagi
Do you win with the town?
Yes. What would you do if I said "no?" Lol I'm not sure of the point of your question but okay.
I'm wondering why oromagi's first instinct is to lynch inactives rather than have them replaced. Kinda seems like a lazy way to decide on lynches, especially DP1 which often ends in a No Lynch anyway.
I'm also curious about Supa's assertion that we shouldn't try to figure out theme analysis. Why is that? He notes "roles are extremely related to characters" but what does that have to do with making it difficult to discern the theme split? The theme could be violent crimes vs. non-violent, individual crimes vs. group crimes, serious crimes (ones that carry lengthy legal punishment) vs. non-serious crimes, etc. Another possibility is that since town = crimes the scum team could be law enforcement. That's the only scenario where I could see theme analysis being useless per se, but in that case I'm not sure how Supa would know that.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't play on weekends so pinging me would have been pointless. VTL iLikePie
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
My view is that mandated reporting should be applied across the board (with exception to attorney-client). To allow any other exceptions creates an unnecessary foothold for privilege and abuse.
That would make sense for people who support the mandate. It's interesting that a teacher is considered a mandatory reporter but a nanny isn't, or that a mother wouldn't be legally required to report her husband or something. It seems if the logic stands for one adult it would stand for all adults that are in-the-know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The government can't stay out of marriage because of tax implications. I agree they should stop penalizing single people and remove the legal benefits of marriage. Contracts should suffice at establishing power of attorney, combining or dividing joint resources and other marital privileges.
In addition to polygamy I gave the example of parents being prosecuted for negligence if their religion calls them to refuse their children medical attention. I also gave the example of female genital mutilation. It's common in Africa but actually practiced all over the world as a religious practice. Would you be okay with mutilating female babies in the U.S. due to their parent's religion? If you'd like I can link you to what that practice entails.
Again it's possible you are okay with it because you believe anything should be allowed under the guise of religious freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
The Guardian: Donald Trump’s demand for $2,000 relief checks to Americans struggling financially with the pandemic was all but dead after Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said on Wednesday that a proposal from Democrats had “no realistic path to quickly pass the Senate. ” Declaring that he would not be “bullied” by Democrats into quickly approving the measure, McConnell effectively denied a final request for legislative action by the president in the waning days of his administration. “We just approved almost a trillion dollars in aid a few days ago,” McConnell said.
Lol they're bAAaack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The law is on your side. Only 7 states consider clergy to be mandatory reporters.
You didn't respond to my point about other people's illegal religious practices but that's okay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But besides that, I stand on this not beimg a religious issue. No one should be forced to say anything they don't want to. If someone sees a murder, and would prefer to hide and keep it to themselves, that is their business.
Like I said, I understand your position. I disagree with it but think it makes more sense if you apply it to everyone and not just clergy.
But in particular when it comes to our faith, the sacrament of confession cannot be overturned by secular laws. If secular laws encroach on the church, they are to be disobeyed.
I understand you believe this - I was just pointing out the state does not recognize all religious laws, and rightfully so. For instance a parent that does not seek medical treatment for their child due to religious beliefs can still be charged with negligence. And I'm sure you'd want it prosecuted if people started practicing female circumcision like they do in Africa due to their religious beliefs.
And on that note, making laws requiring people to snitch on others is unenforceable to begin with.
It's about punishing people retroactively for not reporting. For instance if people find out that your teacher knew you were being molested but did not report it, the teacher would be fired. So it's not about enforcing so much as trying to deter people from silence with the threat of legal penalty. It's kinda sad you need this "threat" to do the right thing and report anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You did not answer my question, discredit what I said, nor make a relevant point to what I said, so there is no need to tag me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I said Trump apologists say he was elected to stand up for the forgotten working class. I don't know why you're asking me about Democrat policies.
Do you agree with Rand Paul that the working class should not receive government assistance in the form of stimulus checks, or do you agree with Trump that they should receive even more government assistance?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Orthodox Church, we don't tolerate this kind of behavior with clergy. There would be a riot.
Abuse occurs in all kinds of institutions and relationships. Religious organizations have a tendency to create an atmosphere where a lot of it is kept secret. There are different denominations of Orthodox churches so I don't know which one you belong to, but if you look it up I'm sure you'll find it has happened. If your church does a better job at dealing with it than others -- good. But we must recognize abuse happens in other places.
Once again, I understand it is considered sacrilegious to reveal confessions. But not every religious belief is recognized or validated by law. I'm asking if you think this particular religious belief (the sanctity of confession) is worth upholding at the expense of children being molested. You seem to be answering yes, you believe it is more important to protect religious rights to privacy and ritual than it is to protect the victims of rape. I understand your point. I disagree but I understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Relief from what?
Financial peril (unemployment / underemployment). Do you agree with Rand Paul that the working class should not receive government assistance in the form of stimulus checks, or do you agree with Trump that they should receive even more government assistance?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And you think standing up for the forgotten working class means lowering taxes and providing government assistance?
Trump said lowering taxes for the working class would benefit them and I agree. I didn't say anything about government assistance.
Do you agree with Rand Paul that the working class should not receive government assistance in the form of stimulus checks, or do you agree with Trump that they should receive even more government assistance?
What do you think the word "forgotten" signifies?
In this context, people who feel that government policies have hurt them and not provided any relief.
Created:
Posted in:
One could make a case either way. It's easy to argue Jesus was not a socialist by pointing out he commanded people to help the poor; he did not say government should forcibly redistribute wealth or demand collective ownership of property. He was pro charity.
On the other hand Jesus did recognize the utility of the state, and valued collective ideals over greed or excess. A few popes have used Jesus' words to advocate for better conditions for workers. So if one believed that Jesus supported government authority to implement his values, I could see making a case for him being a socialist.
He'd probably be more of a hippy activist that conservatives just hated and made fun of though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
None of those promises were why he was elected. Why do you think this?
Those are some of the reasons Trump apologists say he was elected ("to stand up for the forgotten working class"). Are you asking why I think he was really elected or why he didn't keep those promises?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I can't vote in the primaries because I'm not a registered Democrat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do the Democrats who support private healthcare also support the right for anyone to buy any firearm they want, the right to discriminate, or the right to not pay taxes and instead keep one's own money to do as they please? If not they're not individualists. The classic definition of "liberal" is about individualism, but it's also about the promotion of free enterprise which many Dems have abandoned. So I don't think it's accurate to classify Dems as individualists today but this discourse in semantics is boring me.
By "populism" I'm referring to Trump's populist campaign promises — that the rich would pay more, the forgotten working class would pay less, and special interest loopholes like the carried-interest provision for hedge-fund managers would be gone (none of that happened). The term typically refers to "anti elites" who think the government is rigged in favor of the rich and against the working class.
By "pro capitalism" I am talking about lower taxes and less regulation, including little to no trade barriers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
So to confirm, you do not think it was criminally negligent for the Catholic Church to allow child molestation to continue by known pedophiles, correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It seems you agree that clergy should not have to report instances of child abuse and do not agree with the lawsuits finding the Catholic church negligent. That's fine; this is an opinion based dialog. But under current constitutional law, the government can and does impose restrictions on a religious belief or practice, as long as the law in question applies to everyone and does not target a specific religion or religious practice. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute. For example in Reynolds v. United States, the Court upheld the criminal conviction of Mormons engaging in polygamy even though that is part of their religious practices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You are glossing over the point. I know priests can be defrocked for revealing confessions. The point is whether clergy should be exempt from reporting high crimes whereas other people MUST report them or be penalized. For instance a teacher, social worker, cop or therapist must report if they know a child is being sexually abused. Clergy do not have to report it and as a result often stay silent + allow the abuse to continue, which we have seen many times happen with the Catholic Church being the most popular example.
I understand that under the law it is legal for clergy to not report abuse (only in 7 states do they have to report it). I'm asking if you agree with this standard. If you're saying yes, then recognize a situation like the one I described to fauxlaw is permissible under the law:
The idea for this topic came to me after watching a documentary about Scientology and hearing about a lot of abuses within their church. One of the people was talking about how during an auditing session (which is like a confessional), the person who was raping him admitted it to the auditor. Under Scientologist beliefs it is wrong to prosecute another Scientologist. They also believe that you are responsible for everything that happens to you in life. So rather then punish the rapist, the child victim was told it was his fault that he was getting molested and he had to apologize to his rapist and the rapist's wife for "taking him away from her" or something.
This is the kind of stuff that happens without government regulation and oversight. I do not take religious freedom lightly even though I am not religious. I believe in religious freedom but it does have legal limitations. For instance I can't ingest psychedelic mushrooms and other drugs even though they're part of some religious rituals. We don't allow Mormons to legally marry more than one person even though their faith allows it. So the state does step in to make some exceptions. I'm just curious if people think this should be one of them. It's an interesting topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Bolderdash. A heterosexual man would find any sexual contact with another male, regardless of age, repulsive. I call bs on this study.
You are misunderstanding. A man is heterosexual because he is attracted to women. These pedophiles are not considered heterosexual because they are not attracted to developed women and they are attracted to children of both sexes.
More bs. Many, many otherwise "normal" adult guys would sleep with a physically mature 16 year old female if they could get away with it. It has nothing to do with regression or stress.
You misunderstand again. Attraction to a PHYSICALLY MATURE 16 year old does not qualify as pedophilia. You don't even understand the premise of the study to be able to disagree with it lol.
Word play. The majority of pedophiles ARE men, and the majority of men ARE married to women. More deceptive word play. Male child molesters who molest boys ARE gay. We know most child molesters are not gay, because most men are not gay.
If most pedophiles are heterosexuals that are married to women, then it makes no sense whatsoever to say that GAYS in particular should be feared.
Most child molesters are easy to figure out if the parents paid attention and weren't fooled by insipid political correctness that tries to cancel reality. Most children are never molested. Molesters look for children of poor, uneducated, uninterested parents with loopy progressive ideas about parenting.
About 1 in 7 girls and 1 in 25 boys will be sexually abused before their 18th birthday (again it looks like gays are not the problem after all). Apparently it's not easy to figure out since it is incredibly rare to hold people accountable for these crimes. It's true that sexual predators will seek out kids that seem troubled or more likely to be ignored, but it is unequivocally wrong to suggest that "loopy progressive ideas" about parenting have anything to do with it. You literally just made that up. Grooming is a common practice for child molesters where they form close bonds with the parents and kids in order to be trusted.
I don't subscribe to PC nonsense, and I never allow it to cancel reality I see before my eyes. Gay men are just like straight men. That is how I know them.
So you agree that gay men are not more inclined to rape children than straight men since they are so alike. That's good. But note it is not PC nonsense to accept reality and not be a bigot. That's just called common sense and human decency. Stick with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Thank you for keeping an open mind. The idea for this topic came to me after watching a documentary about Scientology and hearing about a lot of abuses within their church. One of the people was talking about how during an auditing session (which is like a confessional), the person who was raping him admitted it to the auditor. Under Scientologist beliefs it is wrong to prosecute another Scientologist. They also believe that you are responsible for everything that happens to you in life. So rather then punish the rapist, the child victim was told it was his fault that he was getting molested and he had to apologize to his rapist and the rapist's wife for "taking him away from her" or something.
It sounds insane, but if you think about it one person's devout religious beliefs sound insane to others. I'm sure some Jehovah's Witness beliefs sound crazy to you or some Nation of Islam beliefs might sound crazy to you. So it can be hard to distinguish between religion/cult and I'm wondering if we would apply the same standards to our own faiths that we would to others. For instance most would see what Scientologists do as absurd, but their church allows this to continue and it's legal. It looks like a lot of people here believe it should be legal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
So to confirm, you do not think it was criminally negligent for the Catholic Church to allow child molestation to continue by known pedophiles, correct?
It sounds like you don't think anyone (including teachers, therapists, social workers, pediatricians and cops) should have to report of abuse they know is going on. I strongly disagree but appreciate the straight forward answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The point is, and the question you dodged, is, "Why should they not be held culpable for their crimes if the person across from them is a lawyer?"You answered the question, "Why is a lawyer allowed to keep their secrets?" But that is not the question I asked.
I said: I agree that people who confess their sins probably recognize those sins were wrong, but they should still be held culpable under the law if applicable. You responded, "Why should they not be held culpable if the person across from them is a lawyer??" I never said they should NOT be held culpable if the person across from them is a lawyer. So I don't know why you asked that question.
This has nothing to do with why a criminal should be allowed to keep his crime a secret.
I never said a criminal should be "allowed to keep his crime a secret" either.
Nope. So many Catholic priests allowed their collogues to continue raping and molesting little boys for decades because they to were homosexual pedophiles. Being regulated by societies standards would not have made a bit of difference.
That is completely wrong. The pedophiles would be in JAIL if they were reported, therefore unable to continue molesting children.
Would the parent feel better if the crime never came to light because a lawyer is allowed to keep it secret and the criminal did nothing at all in terms of penance? Basically, you don't want priests to be able to do what lawyers already do, because you have an antireligious bias.
If you're saying you do not believe attorney-client privilege is a good thing, then that is an interesting but understandable position. Is that what you believe?
My issue with you is the incoherent imbalance between lawyers and priests. Either no crime should be able to be kept secret, or Priests deserve the same protections as lawyers. As a father, telling me that my child's killer went free because he confessed to his lawyer instead of his priest would not be justice to me.
I completely understand your point why lawyers are not "above" priests and how it would not satisfy a parent to know lawyers were keeping secrets. But I wholly disagree that priests should be given the same protections as lawyers because lawyers are governed and regulated by objective standards in society, whereas religious officials get to make up their own rules. There is no oversight. Lawyers are disbarred and prosecuted if they violate ethical standards.
I agree with people who place their religion above the state law. I do too. And I am willing and ready to suffer the cost of that belief. But FGM is not a recognized official religion that is entitled to protection by the state.
So why does it matter if their religion is not recognized by the state if they place their religion above the state?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Because they might stop or might even turn themselves in. If even a fraction of people reform or turn themselves in, wouldn't you want the option to be there?
Sure. You don't need to confess to a priest first. You could turn yourself in on your own, or speak to someone else like a therapist, social worker or psychologist. Is there any evidence to back up the supposition that people who speak to priests first are more likely to turn themselves in later on? Probably not.
Considering how no one actually has devout Pastafarianism as a belief, no it wouldn't, you would literally be using your 'faith' as a shield, but something tells me you already know this and are asking this question out of a place of dishonesty.
I chose Pastafarianism because most religious people find it a ridiculous concept. Similarly a lot of aspects of popular religions like Christianity sound totally ridiculous to atheists and people of other faiths. For instance the idea of someone rising from the dead after several days and then floating off into the sky like a helium balloon is one of many laughable / absurd beliefs that Christians hold dear, and expect other people to respect even though their beliefs sound insane to other people. So why shouldn't you respect a declared Pastafarian? I referenced Scientology because a lot of people find that to be a ridiculous cult with crazy beliefs as well, yet it is a legitimate religion according to government standards and the tens of thousands of people who devote their life to it. Unlike Pastafarians, Scientologists are very serious.
No, but how is that applicable to anything I have said?
My question about Scientologist auditors doesn't have to do with anything you said. It's me repeating the hypothetical question I posed to someone else that you glossed over (and chose to ask me a question instead which I answered). You still haven't answered my question though. The specific question was do you think justice would be served if someone raped your mother, and the extent of their "punishment" was confessing to an auditor who instructed them to lead a better life going forward.
I assume the answer is no and that you would want criminal justice upheld in a court of law, per your acknowledgment that we do have laws to govern society that exist separate from people's subjective religious beliefs. So the question becomes why should people who confess to priests et. al be allowed to feel like they can clear their conscience without legal repercussions while the victims do not get justice. I think it's an interesting topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I believe it is everyone's right to not report things they see. Whether or not that is moral is a different question. It's not a religious issue.
So you don't think anyone (including teachers, therapists, social workers, pediatricians and cops) should have to report of abuse they know is going on. I strongly disagree but appreciate the straight forward answer.
To confirm, you do not think it was criminally negligent for the Catholic Church to allow child molestation to continue by known pedophiles, correct?
The 5th amendment guarantees the right to not have to incriminate oneself. It's not a religious issue.
Right, the 5th amendment applies to not incriminating one's self. It doesn't have to do with reporting other people. But what does this have to do with my question about whether or not an auditor providing spiritual guidance qualifies as justice for rape?
Secular authority is not the domain of the church.
Do you think if someone commits a crime, it would be sufficient to confess to their deity/priest and not have the criminal justice system involved? If not, why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
You acknowledged that in situation "A" where someone confesses their crimes, they might still continue committing them -- so why should I be thankful they confessed?
Similarly in scenario "B" you're saying if someone commits more crimes they might never get caught. But they might very well be caught. So you're presenting a hypothetical situation with no clues as to what is more likely to happen. Here I will say I prefer situation "B" because most criminals don't have people to talk to about their crimes, yet we still expect law enforcement and the criminal justice system to work.
In choosing situation "B" I am not prioritizing retributive justice or punishment -- it's just that you acknowledged their confessing might not get them to stop anyway (and in fact psychologists would say some people can't stop) so in that case it is not effective or worthwhile.
Now your turn to answer my questions :) #1 If I said I shouldn't have to report child molestation that I know is occurring because of my devout Pastafarianism and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would that be acceptable?
#2 If your mom was raped, and the perpetrator confessed their crime to their Scientology auditor (which could be a child) who counsels them to lead a better life, would that qualify as justice to you? #3 Why do we send people to law enforcement instead of clergy when they do wrong? Thank you in advance for your reply.
Created:
Posted in:
*Edit: I meant to say AOC unseated a bland, old white incumbent (not Republican) to represent the Bronx.
Created:
Posted in:
People have lost jobs for stupid and unfair reasons since the beginning of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Thanks for your response. Can I ask a few questions? #1 If I said I shouldn't have to report child molestation that I know is occurring because of my devout Pastafarianism and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would that be acceptable?
Suppose someone raped your mother. The perpetrator confessed their crime to their Scientology auditor (the person who hears Scientologist confessions -- and by the way sometimes auditors are children). The auditor advises the perp to live a better life going forward. #2 Does that qualify as justice to you? #3 Why do we send people to law enforcement instead of clergy when they do wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
My feelings on AOC are pretty complicated. I think most of her economic proposals are fairy tales straight off Santa's wish list and I resent her for that, but I think she is good for the political landscape -- kinda like Trump but with a brain and soul. I like that she upset the status quo and rode a wave of grassroots support to unseat a bland, old, white Republican to represent the Bronx. I like that she's a spitfire and takes no shit from anyone, especially the Establishment. I like that she refuses to kiss the party ring and get in line. I like how snarky she is. I like that she peeled back the curtain on how several aspects of representative onboarding works. I like that she's in touch with her constituents and utilizes social media to connect. I like that she's willing to push the envelope on socially progressive issues, much to the dismay of her eggshell-walking peers and superiors in the party. I love that she's a young, working class woman of color who was able to make her American dream real. I love how she's inspiring millions of young people around the country to get involved in politics and activism. I love how strong she stands in the face of immeasurable hate, threats, bullying, and criticism. I honestly can't imagine going from a 20-something year old bartender to possibly the second most discussed figure in all American politics virtually overnight. She's a total brick wall and I admire that a lot.
What Schumer brings to the table is experience and subsequent foresight. He has a damn near impossible task of maintaining strong party unity in a caucus with a very wide range of political views. I don't think people grasp how difficult it is for him and Nancy to achieve that. Chuck knows that you have to compromise to be successful in Washington. He knows you have to leverage relationships and favors. I'm not sure AOC's politically savvy enough to be effective in that role, but I can see her being a future asset to the Dems. Schumer's gone left over the years so they're pretty aligned on the issues anyway. I would probably vote for her just because she's younger and I like that. I'm not even sure you should be eligible to run for office past 66 years of age and he's 70. But who's to say I would vote for a Democrat for Senate? Not sure. I didn't last time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Before I respond, let me ask you a few questions. Suppose someone raped your mother. The perpetrator confessed their crime to their Scientology auditor (the person who hears Scientologist confessions -- and by the way sometimes auditors are children). The auditor advises the perp to live a better life going forward. Does that qualify as justice to you? Why do we send people to law enforcement instead of clergy when they do wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
This thread is looking to discuss whether or not the GOP will retain a populist lean post Trump, or go back to their pro capitalism rhetoric. Your jabs at Democrats don't have anything to do with that question. Do you have an opinion on the topic at hand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They don't have a problem owning a Honda Civic. And it kills more people than guns do.
Guns and cars are not exactly comparable, but if you want to make that point you'll have to note it requires passing a test and renewing a license + other government regulation to be able to drive a car.
Lol at your comment telling someone to "stop arguing other things with the wind." Don't worry, you will always be the #1 best bringer upper of red herrings and other fallacies in my book <3
I maintain Democrats are not individualists and who knows where the GOP stands on anything (economic) going forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I decided to create a separate post to address your misguided views on gay men.
Studies show there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because he often finds adults of either sex repulsive, and often molests children of both sexes.
Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Researchers found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships. The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute reports that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women.
Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside bathrooms waiting to snatch children or whatever other nonsense the far-right peddles to fear monger and scare ignorant people that are easy to trick. Instead most pedophiles are people who seem normal and trustworthy; that is why parents do not suspect anything and give them access to their children.
But I digress. I hope you find it in your heart to do some research and accept that your beliefs about gay men are totally invalid and predicated on bigotry and discrimination that is not substantiated by the facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I didn't give my opinion in the OP because I wanted to hear from other people first.
There is no such thing as "spiritual rights" under the law. There is such thing as the right to a fair trial under the law, which is why attorney-client privilege is not the same as clergy privilege. It is completely incorrect to say that priests keep secrets for the same reason lawyers do. Lawyers are legally obligated to provide the best possible legal counsel that has a tangible influence in the physical world; they are managed and regulated by society's standards. Priests provide subjective spiritual guidance that has no legal implications and no oversight whatsoever. That's why so many Catholic priests allowed their collogues to continue raping and molesting little children for decades with no repercussions.
We have a criminal justice system that exists to enforce the law. If someone's child is molested or killed, I doubt the parent would feel justice was served by the perpetrator doing some charity work, saying a few Hail Marys or whatever else the priest told them might absolve them of their sin. The victims would want to seek justice under the law which they deserve -- so there is a clear difference between the role of lawyers and the role of priests. Priests are not qualified to provide legal advice because they are not proven experts in the law of the land that governs people of all faiths.
I noticed you did not answer my question: if I said I shouldn't have to report child molestation that I know is occurring because of my devout Pastafarianism and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would that be acceptable?
Created: