its great to hear someone else say this. I feel exactly the same. Taxes don't bother me as long as they are used to make a society Im happy to live in.
“People think homeless people are lazy, and they are not lazy. This is hard work.”
It probably is hard being out there in all sorts of weather. But it’s not a productive endeavor, it contributes nothing to society. I can also see it is dangerous and distracting to have people hanging out and moving around so close to traffic. Cars and pedestrians don’t mix well.
“Not a productive endeavor” could be a classification for thousands of businesses that exist and make money. That just seems like a weak justification for attacking a marginalized group.
Safety issues are a concern but for example in my city, firefighters often have a “fill the boot” fundraiser where they run around cars at stoplights trying to get people to put money into a boot that they’re carrying around. This is no different than pan handling, except one group is viewed more favorably than the other and safety doesn’t seem to be such an issue with the favored group.
There needs to be some useful and productive way for homeless to make money, ideally open schemes in which anyone regardless of status can participate without restrictive conditions and expectations.
This isn’t about speech. This is about location. I can see why this would be considered a safety issue. Medians weren’t designed for people to stand in them. They’re designed to separate traffic and facilitate signage, light poles, etc.
I’m against the criminalization of homelessness, but this isn’t that.
Seeing them walking in the road at traffic lights takes me so long to get used to when visiting the US, they’re less intense than the people who hang around outside shops begging though.
I don’t think shuffling them around and making everyone find new places to beg will help anything, the solution is two things. For those fhat need it mental health help plus education and tools to enable simple living, then material helps to get into a dwelling and develop a meaningful and sustainable lifestyle.
They aren’t shuffling them around. They are arresting them and putting them in private prisons, because slavery is still legal in the U.S. if you’re a prisoner and private prisons have quotas.
Stateline - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Stateline:
> MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Stateline - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Stateline:
> MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
They do make electric Zambonis. It’s a newer technology, so a lot of rinks have older internal combustion models that they are unwilling or unable to replace. Zambonis weren’t cheap to begin with, being a specialized piece of equipment, and they’ve been hit by similar inflation issues as the car industry has.
Stateline - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Stateline:
> MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
It makes me wonder, why are the religious obsess with abortion when the US allows divorce, even though the Bible forbids it? Why not campaign on striking down divorce as well?
I originally read that as "minimum wage laws"and was confused as to why they were fighting to raise wages, then I reread it and realized, “oh, they just want to fuck kids. That tracks.”
it’s always about control, forcing women to have kids to carry on religion. once they’re an adult, divorce doesn’t matter because they don’t care, you’re an adult. once the baby is born, they couldn’t care less. it’s also about punishment. a man can’t be a whore, but if a woman gets pregnant, especially out of wedlock, she’s a whore and deserves it.
edit: these are not my views at all, this is what is forced on women in America through religion and to a large extent, the Republican party. they’re treated like burdens and baby makers and deserve pain and suffering like eve did in the book of tall tales.
That is… a stupefying description of what is written. I had to read the torah in primary school. Half a day, every school day, one book per year, (two for Leviticus), in Hebrew. I was confounded. I thought maybe Rabbi had us skip that part.
The part you are referring to is referred to as “Sota” which describes a magical ceremony where in a man would bring his allegedly unfaithful wife before a Beis Din, and she could drink a magic potion, snickeringly referred to as “sota water,” to prove her innocence. The logic goes that if the woman was unfaithful, “these afflictive waters shall enter your innards, causing your belly to swell and your thigh to rupture” . This could be taken mean an abortion, but in my grade school class, we were very giggly, because we thought it meant she would explode.
Further, the potion is described being water, dust from the tabernacle floor, and an invocation written down and dissolved in the water (Number 5: 17, and 23), and is explicitly stated it won’t hurt an innocent woman. (28). This passage does evoke abortion. But it describes a magical ritual that it claims will only cause abortion in unfaithful women, and the potion provided wont cause anyone to abort (although it is gross). Claiming in instructs an abortion is a massive stretch.
The situation (infidelity, the graphic imagery of swelling bellies and rupturing thighs) naturally implies abortion, but the ‘Nezre’ah Zerah’ implies the potion will cause barreness.
Fair enough. Of course, this is also from the same half of the Bible Christians conveniently ignore when they want bacon for breakfast, so I guess it’s on the moot side of things.
Yes, I boiled it down to bare bones, but if you ask almost any Rabbi if abortion is allowed, they will do their typical Rabbi thing of trying to dance around the answer so you answer your own question, but if you try to pin them down, they will say that it isn’t forbidden, but should really only be used if the mother in danger of health complications, like death.
As I understand it, The Talmud or Mishrad goes further into how to prepare butter waters, and there is a root that also goes in there that was well known to facilitate an abortion.
because republican donors saw it as a way to create political division after Roe, so they required the churches they donate to to adopt the catholic theology of fetal personhood. This had the double effect of letting evangelicals feel like the state was oppressing their freshly adopted religious belief and persecuting them.
My brother honestly wants to get rid of divorce so that people will “take the commitment more seriously”.
He said this after his fiancee left for another guy. Hilarious at first glance, mortifying when you realize what he actually wanted to happen based on what he said.
Couch boy wants to give parents an extra vote for every child they have. Now, he doesn’t say how they are split between the parents so a) probably goes to the father and b) not if the kid has 2 moms or 2 dads.
Ok, then start issuing them social security numbers as soon as they’ve confirmed your pregnant so parents can start applying for and receiving benefits before the child is even born.
Not attacking you, but I hate this fucking argument about fetuses being people: if they’re people at the moment of conception, then they need to be treated as such. Conservatives can’t have it both ways, despite the fact I know in their minds they can.
On an unrelated note: I think it’s time we got rid of “under God” and “In God We Trust” from the pledge of allegiance and all of our currency. We’re not a Christian nation, I don’t believe in a God, and shouldn’t have to handle currency that goes against my lack of religious beliefs.
But half our country wants a Christian-Theocratic-Sharia-Law institution as our government, and I’d prefer they just fuck right off.
I’ll probably get down-voted to oblivion for asking, but continuing this train of thought: If a woman gives birth to a baby and simply walks away, should she be charged with a crime?
If not, why?
If so, why?
There are plenty of examples of this, so it really isn’t thoeretical.
Yes, she would be if she left it on the street or in a dumpster or something. If she doesn’t want it, she should surrender it to someone or someplace that will take care of it What the fuck is wrong with YOU that you think it’s acceptable for a baby to be left to die?
She’s been locked in a room and tormented for 9 months. I’m not saying it’s “acceptable”, I’m saying it’s understandable if the first thing she does is run away from the symbol of her torment. Much like how murder isn’t acceptable, but if the first thing she did was murder the person who tortured her there wouldn’t be a jury that would convict her. There is a strong case for temporary insanity.
It is her responsibility to make sure the baby isn’t just being left to die somewhere, yes. If she wants to take it somewhere where others will take care of it, so be it. But it is NEVER right to “simply walk away.”
Yeah, there’s no excuse for dumpster babies when it is so easy to leave them with responsible people who will ensure the child grows up safe, in a loving home.
No. A mother/parent/or guardian can abandon a newborn at most hospitals, fire stations, or safe haven deep off stations. In most cases the process is anonymous if you want it to be.
Yes, because it’s trivial to simply leave the baby at a fire station. The important distinction is that it’s drastically easier to carry a baby for 10 blocks than 10 months.
It’s easy to bring a baby to a facility and say “I can’t do this.” There is no punishment for doing so.
It’s much more difficult to leave a fetus at a facility and say “I can’t do this.”
It is also very difficult to get a 3rd trimester abortion unless there are some major health risks involved. During the 1st trimester (when 95% of abortions are performed) the fetus is physically incapable of feeling pain.
Yes because you have an active duty to seek continuation of care when leaving someone helpless. It’s like walking away after trying to help an unconscious stranger when you learn they need cpr. You don’t necessarily need to give them cpr but you should have to at least call 911 for them
I can’t see down votes (blahaj user), but I hope you weren’t downvoted to oblivion. It’s good to ask questions that examine one’s beliefs and those of others. It’s a great way to grow as a person. I personally believe the more difficult and awkward the question, the more it should be considered.
She is not and should not get in any trouble. If anything the decision should be celebrated, as long as we’re talking about a safe dropoff at a hospital or other safe haven.
The child will go from a mother who was in a situation so bad she was willing to give up her baby, to most likely a couple that’s been waiting years to adopt and are dying to be parents.
Stateline Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)> Name: stateline.org> Bias: Left
> Factual Reporting: High
> Country: United States of America
> Full Report: mediabiasfactcheck.com/stateline-bias-and-credibi…
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
FooterBeep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
stateline.org
Active