This is not a UBI Universal Basic Income; this is a CBI Conditional Basic Income. The conditions are currently being selected and being homeless.
Also this program basically already exists. It is just TANF selected for homelessness instead low-income families with children.
Edit: Universal not Unconditional
Just to help you out. When an apologist is in action, what are they doing? I will give you a hint. It isn’t “apologistizing”.
Two words, I know they are kind of big so read them slowly.
READING COMPREHENSION.
Sir_Simon_Spamalot was clearly implying that by mugmoor’s “logic” they also give implied to support to some organization that has committed an atrocity at some point.
Do you eat food from a store? I bet that store carries Nestle products. Those stores help Nestle put money in their pockets. Nearly every grocery store and therefore food shopper must therefore “implicitly support” those atrocities.
In fact, it implies a stronger support, since OPs church definitely does not send money to the catholic church which mugmoor was actually talking about.
Is your reading comprehension so low that you do not realize that I am “apologizing” for gay people who are supporting gay rights?
It makes it sound like you think gay people are evil.
Definitely 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.”
The examples listed are examples of violent victories not political ones. Even then, they imply backtracking instead of maintaining the status quo until victory.
This was not a change in policy, it maintained the existing one, so that they could finalize their “divorce” amicably. There is a ton of properties as well as pensions involved. Properties that the UMC technically owns but was paid for by local congregations.
It might be worth noting that those gay bishops that I mentioned aren’t actually allowed under current church rules. If they forced the issue and the conservative churches brought them to court instead, there is no telling what the courts would decide. Making deals was likely the smart choice, even if it meant waiting a bit until they start offering gay marriages to their parishioners.
Compromises are useful when you want something. When your side is about to win you don’t blow up the organization unless you have a mental problem.
Also, from what I can tell the gay bishops voted for the compromise. If they thought it was the right way to handle it, I am not going to shame them for it.
We will see if they make good on it next year.
That seems to be more of a kick-the-can vote to allow the more conservative churches time to leave.
More than 6,000 United Methodist congregations — a fifth of the U.S. total — have now received permission to leave the denomination amid a schism over theology and the role of LGBTQ people in the nation’s second-largest Protestant denomination
With these departures, progressives are expected to propose changing church law at the next General Conference in 2024 to allow for same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ people.
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.
Same reason that people stick with Google.
After years in the eco-system it is obnoxious to swap, and the other main competitor isn’t any better of a company to deal with.
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.
That is a great idea, but no. He was living in another part of the country from them at the time of the initial attack. The article was written in that area.
Thank you for the clarification.
I have read that multiple times. I just think it is a shite theory.
I eventually need to put it in my own words, but /u/theneverfox@pawb.social’s post is pretty good for now: (emphasis added)
There’s no paradox in tolerance. Tolerance means you accept everyone existing within the societal contract - period. Doesn’t matter if they’re Republican, a racist, or anything else
Behavior out of bounds should be fought appropriately. If someone uses words to express racism, call them a disgusting asshole. If a bunch of neonazis organize for an act of violence, confront it with violence. Respond appropriately.
Conversely, if a racist can be around people of other races without acting racist, accept them in the group to reinforce their rehabilitation. If someone with braindead opinions bites their tongue and keeps it to themselves, tolerate them.
There’s no paradox - there’s acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior. If anyone, displays only acceptable behavior, you tolerate them - full stop. If anyone goes out of bounds, you respond appropriately to correct the behavior - full stop.
The “paradox of tolerance” is people justifying attacking people. This myth does nothing but ensure there’s no way back for people who have drifted out of bounds - it’s a recipe for radicalizing people.
I’m genuinely convinced the “paradox of tolerance” is a psyops designed to fracture society by breeding extremists… If there’s no tolerance when they behave and no way back, what do you think is going to happen? Either their beliefs that they’re under attack get constantly reinforced and they get further pushed out of bounds, or we kill them all before they destroy our society
There has to be a way back, or the only way forward is ideological purges
Looks like they are both bigots from here.
Yeah, party affiliation is way more important than who a person is or how they live their life!
Thank you for the link. The article from that comment was far superior.
I am sorry to hear that Josh lost his life like that. Seems like Philly lost a good guy.
Hopefully it wasn’t actually the domestic option. It is a hard thought to think that someone he helped out by letting them live there would come back to kill him.
Also, I am glad to hear that his friends are looking into rehoming his rescued cat friend.
Same here.
I have an uncle who was killed due to an article he was doing research for. Sadly, he ended up in a coma and then someone came back to finish the job. It had a large impact on my mother and her siblings, though it was a few years before I was born. I had always wondered how much of it was an exaggeration until a couple years ago when we found an article saying basically the same things the aunts and uncles always had.
I am a fan of a UBI (Universal Basic Income) but these limited CBI (Conditional Basic Income) trials are not really comparable to a long-term implementation of either version.
Taking a specific number of people and giving them cash is certainly going to improve their lives. Giving cash to everyone in a city or state, including new arrival, is asking for local inflation and a population explosion. If the area is empty and has abundant natural resources that can be converted into jobs it will probably work out, at least for a while. If it is a major city with most of the resources and land already in use, and there is not much demand for workers, then the program’s budget is likely to be overrun fairly quickly.