BaldProphet

BaldProphet , 6 months ago

I don't think it's appropriate to put a "but" after "people should feel safe in prison". It implies that there are people who do not deserve safety while incarcerated.

BaldProphet , 6 months ago

Re-read the report. Bishop Miller would have testified if the law permitted him to do so. The problem is the abuser had to give permission first, which he obviously wasn't willing to do.

BaldProphet , 6 months ago

Your view is extremist and bigoted, but you're entitled to it. Assuming you're a United States citizen, your logic makes everyone evil because there are laws that have the effect of protecting people who commit heinous acts, including about half the Bill of Rights. Labeling religious people evil because there are laws that protect them is bigotry.

BaldProphet , 6 months ago

Although framed as if religion (and a certain one in particular) were a central part of this case, the perpetrator abused his own daughter. Being at one point a bishop in the Church offered no additional power or opportunities that being a parent didn't already afford him. The problem is the state of Idaho has a clergy-penitent privilege law. If that law didn't exist, there would have been no problem with a Latter-day Saint bishop testifying against the abuser.

BaldProphet , 6 months ago

It's worth pointing out that the only person actually protected here is the accused. The clergy-penitent privilege law doesn't actually protect the Church at all in this case.

BaldProphet , 6 months ago

@Jonny stated that all religious people are evil because clergy-penitent privilege laws exist. I'm not arguing against mandatory reporting laws here (although I have reservations because of the First Amendment implications). Making a blanket statement that religious people are evil is bigotry.

BaldProphet , 6 months ago

The law protects penitents. That is its purpose. It protects them from having their private confessions revealed by trusted clergy members.

It's the same sort of law as client-attorney privilege or doctor-patient privilege. You're barking up the wrong tree (and your veiled claim of Americentrism is hilariously off-base here).

BaldProphet , 6 months ago

Wrong. The Bishop cannot divulge the contents of the confession without permission from the penitent.

BaldProphet , 6 months ago

Incorrect. The law protects the penitent by requiring their consent before the clergy member can divulge the contents of a private confession.

BaldProphet , 6 months ago

You should probably brush up on your reading comprehension before engaging in debates online. You should also educate yourself on context before arguing about laws and their implications in a country with as different political paradigms from your own as the United States has. For example, there is no meaningful "freedom of speech" in the UK, while here it is largely held sacred on both sides of the political spectrum.

The law in question applies only to people in the US state of Idaho. It does not apply to people in California, Canada, or the UK. It applies to anyone, whether religious or not, who make confessions to members of the clergy in Idaho. It is assumed that one would only make such a confession because one is religious, but I suppose that isn't necessarily always the case. However, saying that all people who are protected by this law are evil is saying that all people who confess to their clergy are evil. Which is a small-minded, ignorant, bigoted thing to say.

Note again that the law really only exists to protect penitents, not the members of the clergy.

BaldProphet , 6 months ago

The last half of your response is bigoted, but I appreciate the words of logic about the issue at hand. I'm not aware of any situations where a bishop has been censured for reporting crimes that they became aware of through a confession, and from my own service in the Church I find such a thing unlikely.

So really, the risk to Bishop Miller in this case has very little, if anything to do with the Church and everything to do with the fact that it would be illegal for him to testify against John Goodrich, and even if he did, his testimony would be inadmissible.

BaldProphet , 6 months ago

Reason failed you, and so you resorted to more bigotry and ad hominem attacks?

Sure, bud.

BaldProphet , 6 months ago

Making blanket statements about an entire group being brainwashed certainly qualifies as a form of bigotry.

BaldProphet , 6 months ago

Irrelevant. That's not what happened. No child abuse could have continued to occur because the confession was made over a decade later. This isn't a case of protecting a child who is currently being abused. It's about prosecuting a past instance of abuse.

Like I said, reading comprehension. It's like peoples brains melt when they see the word "Mormon" and they forget how to read.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

I kind of like this. As a younger ham, I'm more used to thinking of digital transmissions in terms of bitrate (i.e. my Ethernet network is 1 Mbps) and using baud in amateur radio almost feels like an anachronism.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

That's basically what I mean. The assumption that baud = bandwidth meant that hams could be penalized for using more efficient digital modes, having a deleterious effect on experimentation with digital modes in bands that were thus restricted. It makes far more sense to limit bandwidth than symbol rate. Who cares how fast your messages are as long as they don't cause interference?

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

I think it's hilarious that NASA adopted the streaming industry's terminology for subscription services for its free streaming service. I thought at first that you'd have to pay for NASA+, but it is in fact free.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

California DOT is funded through taxes and I still have to pay an annual subscription to drive my car on public roadways.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

The Mormons tried to take over the whole state through violent rebellion, therefore there was an Execute-On-Sight order put on all Mormons in Missouri.

Actually, the Latter-day Saints legally bought property throughout Missouri and even founded a few towns, but their neighbors didn't like their political and economic influence and formed mobs to kill them and steal their land. The Latter-day Saints were unable to get support from the corrupt Missouri government, and states rights being a major issue of the time, were also unable to get support from the federal government. They defended themselves with deadly force, but were unable to prevail against the mobs, which were explicitly supported by the state. The "Extermination Order" was eventually signed by Governor Lilburn Boggs, and the Latter-day Saints abandoned their legal property in Missouri.

So no, there was no violent rebellion of "Mormons" in Missouri. There was a state-sponsored genocide, which eventually forced an entire faith to flee the United States in search of religious freedom. One of the darkest moments in our country's history.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

It may be too late to turn this ship around, but there are a few things that, at least for me, would make YouTube ads less of a problem:

1. Vet all the ads. Do not allow links to malware sites, scams, or low-quality merchandise and services to be on the platform.
2. Make the ads less annoying. Don't stick them into weird spots on a video.
3. Stop tracking me and trying to display targeted ads. I value my privacy, and like OP, I am never going to click an ad.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

too much money

That's the rub. There's a LOT of money on the table.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

When you buy your software on archive.org

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

So... Are you unironically trying to tell me that every Palestinian is a Hamas terrorist? That's a pretty extreme position to take, my guy, and it's also the only way to reconcile what was quoted in the article with your editorialized headline.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

More than half of Iran is too young to remember Operation Praying Mantis, or wasn't even born yet. They may underestimate America's willingness to respond forcefully to acts of aggression against us.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

I'm not shitting on anyone, I'm simply stating facts. It is a possible explanation for the idiotic moves the Iranian military has been making as of late: Lack of experience.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

I've made no definitive statements, only conjecture. I'm really not sure what argument you're trying to make.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

In case anyone is curious and doesn't know, "Do Not Track" was originally a proposed Internet standard from 2009-2018, but was never formally adopted by the W3C. Its successor is called Global Privacy Control (https://iapp.org/news/a/is-gpc-the-new-do-not-track/). I'm guessing that Grafana is playing games by saying there is no technology standard for DNT, because technically the new standard has a different name. I wouldn't consider a company that plays semantic games like this to be trustworthy when it comes to privacy.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

Many people expressing support for Palestine and warning about genocide in Gaza are using talking points created by Hamas that call for the elimination of the state of Israel.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

There's nothing colonial about Israel. If anything, it is a reclamation of a displaced people of its original land. It has attempted repeatedly to compromise with the Palestinians, but nothing short of genocide against it appeals to them. They have outright rejected all attempts at political compromise, even though Israel was originally under no obligation to compromise with them.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

1. Israel didn't kick the Arabs out, Britain did.
2. Jews are the original inhabitants of the Land of Israel. A more correct analogy would be a bunch of Aztecs walking into Mexico City, being granted a small part of it by Mexico, and then Mexico forcibly evicting all non-Aztecs from that area.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

Do some cursory research into the history of that slogan. It originated as a call for the genocide of Israeli Jews.

Trying to reclaim it now as a "peaceful liberation protest" slogan would be like trying to reclaim the Nazi salute. Only an antisemite would attempt either.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

This coverage is biased. Where is the evidence that it was actually the IDF that did this, and not Hamas?

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

The bias is evident in the article. It heavily implies that the strike must have been the IDF without outright stating as much. That's what bias is, a slant in a particular angle.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

There is nothing legitimate about Hamas. It is a terror organization.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

Maybe Hamas should... checks notes not hide out in refugee camps and use refugees as human shields?

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

I don't think they did it because they had the chance to kill Hamas militants. They actually did kill Hamas militants, who in cowardly and illegal fashion used refugees as human shields.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

I don't believe it is reasonable, but as I said, I am surprised by how many people are unreasonably supportive of Hamas, despite otherwise priding themselves on being progressive forward-thinkers.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

Yes. War is horrific, which is why international laws of war exist. Hamas commits war crimes as its standard procedure, while Israel is forced into impossible situations to defend itself legally. The reason conducting military operations out of civilian places like schools and hospitals is a war crime is because doing so turns those locations into legitimate military targets.

If you don't want your refugee camp to be a military target, don't conduct military operations from the middle of it. Clearly, Hamas got the result it wanted: Dead refugees that it could spin as martyrs to fuel anti-Israel support in the international community.

You've bought the terrorists' propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

You are outright lying. In the first few paragraphs of Hamas' founding document, it clearly calls for the "obliteration" of the state of Israel. It's about genocide against Israel, not "Palestinian lives and rights".

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

If I recall correctly, Israelis were all out in the streets protesting their government just a month or so ago.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

Hamas exists. A Palestinian resistance to Hamas could exist as well (and would likely be supported by Israel and the United States). Yet, there does not seem to be any Palestinian resistance to their violent and corrupt Hamas overlords.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

I mean... They could form a new, democratic government? This isn't rocket science. Why are the only choices that current, dysfunctional regimes? They wouldn't be the first country in living memory to create a new democracy, if they chose to attempt it.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

Wow, guy is seriously trying to justify terrorism.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

I'm not sure what the ANC is, but the Viet Cong were absolutely not justified in their actions. They were part of an attempt to force communism on South Vietnam. In effect, they used force of arms in lieu of democracy to get what they wanted. They committed atrocities and were unjustified in their actions.

Any group that rejects political and democratic solutions to its problems in favor of violence is unjustified. Violence is a last resort.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

Way to completely ignore what I actually wrote.

Resorting to violence when democracy fails is different to outright rejecting democracy and going straight for violence, which is what Hamas and other Islamist terror groups in that region do. Hamas (and, I guess all Palestinians, since you're lumping them together?) have rejected political solutions to their conflict with Israel because they do not desire to coexist, they want to eject all Israeli Jews from the region, or, if possible, slaughter them. They don't desire peace. They desire war and terror and the genocide of the Jews.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

Hamas killed the two-state solution. Israel bent over backwards to try to compromise with and accommodate the Palestinians, which it had no legal obligation to do, and Hamas and its ilk rejected those offers because they didn't want two states--they wanted one state, sans Jews.

I'm not a fan of what Israel has been doing in the West Bank, but don't lie to me and act like those actions are why a two-state solution isn't working. Palestine didn't want to exist in a world that included Israel.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

Well then, they should oust Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Then they can return to the bargaining table, but they shouldn't expect to receive the same generous concessions that were offered previously, imo. I don't see Israel being so willing to put its national security up for compromise as it did before.

BaldProphet , 7 months ago

Tell yourself whatever helps you sleep at night, bud. Hopefully the fact that you support terrorism is overcome by the propaganda you dogmatically cling to.