21·
1 year agoNuance.
- 2 Posts
- 32 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 25th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
21·1 year agoDefinitely some odd choices here. Condemns the main abuser to a life-time of penance and prayer and then totally dismisses any claims that the abuser’s protege may have seen the abuse.
It does seem he eventually changed his tune, but not before seriously harming his credibility on the issue.
In April, the pope publicly acknowledged that he had erred in handling the situation, saying he had made “serious mistakes” — and summoning Chile’s bishops to an emergency meeting in Rome. Francis said he had misjudged Barros and the events in Chile because he hadn’t been given “truthful and balanced information.”
In May, all of Chile’s 31 active bishops offered to resign their posts, issuing a statement in which they asked forgiveness and apologized for “the grave errors and omissions that we committed.”
No, that is called having an adult conversation where we acknowledge reality and then discuss how to fix it, or in this case how it is already being worked on.
Sexual abuse happens in virtually every organization. The main issue is how it is dealt with. The catholic church has a long issue of dealing with issues internally, but this was definitely one that was not being handled correctly. Francis has made it clear that he is willing to face the issue head-on now that he has the power.
We do not have to turn a blind eye to their past mistakes, but we should also acknowledge what they are actually doing to work on those mistakes instead of spreading misinformation about them still hiding from it.
top ignoring and turning away the victims of your priest’s rape and abuse
Same list as I dropped on your other post. Took like 30 seconds in a web-search to call that claim into serious doubt. Also, I searched for him turning away sexual abuse victims and found nothing.
Monday’s meeting between Francis and the six victims of church sexual abuse was not the first such meeting between a pontiff and survivors, but it was the first of Francis’ papacy.
2014 - https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/world/pope-clerical-sex-abuse/
“God weeps” for the sexual abuse of children, Pope Francis said Sunday in Philadelphia, after meeting with victims of sexual abuse.
2015 - https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/us/pope-francis-sex-abuse-victims/index.html
Pope Francis said he regularly meets with victims of sexual abuse on Fridays, and that while the percentage of priests who abuse is relatively low, even one is too many.
In the evening of the same day, Pope Francis held an audience with Portugese victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic Church.
Every time the pope has turned them away and refused to even acknowledge their existence
Where did you hear that? These articles seem to say the opposite.
Monday’s meeting between Francis and the six victims of church sexual abuse was not the first such meeting between a pontiff and survivors, but it was the first of Francis’ papacy.
2014 - https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/world/pope-clerical-sex-abuse/
“God weeps” for the sexual abuse of children, Pope Francis said Sunday in Philadelphia, after meeting with victims of sexual abuse.
2015 - https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/us/pope-francis-sex-abuse-victims/index.html
Pope Francis said he regularly meets with victims of sexual abuse on Fridays, and that while the percentage of priests who abuse is relatively low, even one is too many.
In the evening of the same day, Pope Francis held an audience with Portugese victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic Church.
3·1 year agoI also stared at the picture for way too long before realizing there was a video down below.
3·1 year agoThis is a fantastic read.
I remember febreeze coming out and being like, that would be cool but you can’t trust ads and it sounds like total BS. I knew they added a scent, but I had not idea about the subtle social manipulation that they used to shift people’s habits.
Speaking of habits, this is the first time I have heard about all the science involved in studying and breaking them.
Thank you for that link. Definitely going to save it.
Glad you enjoyed the edit. I am doubly glad someone actually read all that, even though it was mostly irrelevant. 🙃
Edit: Wrote this whole wall of text about Mexico being conquered. Posted. Then came back to check if I had answered your question correctly. Realized you weren’t even talking about Mexico being conquered. Meh… I am leaving it.
It doesn’t matter if Mexico is ripe for conquering. There is no appetite for conquering Mexico by any major portion of the US. The reasons are many and complex, but I can think of six major ones off the top of my head.
First, the general perception of most Americans is that there isn’t much of interest in Mexico except pretty beaches, cheap drinks, and Aztec/Mayan architecture. All of which are already currently accessible to Americans.
Second, it would be expensive, there are a lot of aspects of Mexico that would need complete overhaul to begin to match US regulations and expectations. Many existing states would demand the Federal government pay to bring them up to code, the expense of which would end up being footed by the American people.
2.1: The expense couldn’t even be passed on to the Mexican states through taxes since they would almost certainly be brought in as territories. US territories and their populations have no voting power in the federal government but also have no Federal taxes because of our history with Britain. “Taxation without representation” and all that. More on Territories in the third segment.
2.2: Cleaning up the cartels would be a huge expensive mess under the American legal system and would like cause even more oppressive laws to be implemented to the detriment of current US citizens.
Third, voting and politics, Mexico’s 31 states would have to be added into the US in some fashion. Even if they started as territories, the population of many of them are too great to leave them in that status quo for long. Bringing in new states would be a huge issue and quite possible would help push us to civil war, like last time we added a bunch of states. Pre-Civil War new states were added in pairs; one slave state, one free state. Something like that would need to happen again. Neither Democrats nor Republicans would allow a new state to be brought in that gained the other side a majority.
Fourth, the people of Mexico are pretty different demographically from most of the US, not just in culture, language, and skin color, but also in the variety of religion or non-religion practiced. (This was the largest paragraph but it was getting way into the weeds so I pared it down.)
Fifth, would have to be an open travel, outsider, racism, etc issue. Whatever you want to call it, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of any American to move to any other part of America freely and many of the newly joined citizens would want to utilize it. There is a clear majority (currently) of Americans that think we have an issues with too many immigrants. Even people who are vehemently against Trump’s wall may support decreasing immigration. Absorbing Mexico would be throwing open the flood-gates in the eyes of those who want to slow immigration down.
Sixth, American relations with the International community. Any way you spin it, an offensive war to conquer more territory would be viewed poorly by our allies, and used as justification to increase expansionism by our adversaries. Most Americans have no stomach for continuing to be viewed as colonial, or the consequences of such an action, even if we wouldn’t mind some of the benefits.
It is important to be keep watch for government excess, even if we happen to agree with that specific example.
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. ― H.L. Mencken
Fair enough. That is definitely different in my eyes. If he’s knowingly sending illegal goods into the US, he is definitely breaking US law. It is far more reasonable to ask an extradition partner to scoop him up.
The dictation software we have is pretty shitty though.
As someone who used dictation software when said software needed to be trained first and also trained its users how to speak more clearly, it always amazes me when I hear people say things like this.
The problem is human speech is lazy and inaccurate. Half of the time I have to listen to a voice clip there are two or three words in the clip that are barely intelligible. If I don’t catch it by the third pass I stop and just guess by context. It is the same thing the AWESOME dictation software we have today does, but saves me the time and effort and gives the sender a chance to fix their own mumbles.
Of course, I’m one of those people whose voicemail message used to be, “Don’t leave me a message unless your call went straight to voicemail. I will see your missed call and call you back.”
Poaching endangered species is abhorrent and I have little sympathy for whatever happens to those who drive those species towards extinction for personal gain.
That said, nothing in this article (or another one I read) makes it sound like this guy is a US citizen, ever visited the US, or even shipped illegal products into the US. Shouldn’t Thailand or some world court be prosecuting him? This makes us sound like we think the US has jurisdiction over anyone in the world who would break our laws.
How does it feel to be on the same side as most preachers and weekly church-goers?
Few things drives them more nuts than people who call themselves Christians and don’t even attempt to be followers of Christ. Trying and failing is one thing, and always an embarrassment to the church, but living like the worst dregs of society, while using that name, is worse than an intentional smear campaign.
I had no idea this was a thing despite also having it directly on my walls.
When I read your statement, I was like wait… I think that is what my wall says and had to go check.
The lady that lived here before me put that and some other weird word art on the walls. Been meaning to get around to peeling it off and repainting, but keep finding other priorities.
8·1 year agoBiblical wisdom mostly. Certain parts definitely don’t hold up to modern morality, but there is a lot well-thought-out advice buried in it that has helped people in Judeo-Christian areas for thousands of years.
One of the Proverbs in particular comes to mind: “He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm.” Hard to argue against the inherent wisdom in such a statement.
Also, like you, I have an appreciation for old churches and some religious art.
I wouldn’t want to be reincarnated to earth, but reincarnated to a fantasy world with magic might be nice to try out. My biggest hangup with reincarnation is not bringing the wisdom of hard learned lessons with.
“Jesus H Christ” always made me smirk not sure why. Like Christ was his last name or something.
Technically all Christians have a version of this. Though even in “Bible Churches” it is usually tempered by the second bit below, and processes of repentance and whatnot.
I Corinthians 5
Matthew 18
As an aside, that Corinthians bit spells it out in plain-ass English that any “Christian” screaming at non-Christians about being gay, trans, or whatever either do not know their Bible or only use it when it supports the actions they already want to take.
As a second aside, it is kind of funny what one still remembers even after being out of the church for a couple decades.