News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:19 pm

Actually, communities like that are illegal in some states.

Personally, I think it makes sense. It's a bit ridiculous that a community cannot choose to evict/allow people upon their parenting or employment. My apartment structure was made without thought for children, and yet, children live in it. There's no space for them to play, no space other people can go to get away from their noise.

When you enter a community, you choose to live within its standards.

Now, I understand why there are such laws, as families do more damage and take more space, and therefore are less desirable to rent to. And many old people don't want to live around children. Which made it more difficult for people who have children.

-Crissa

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:25 pm

PS: ml brought up the genocide bit.

While some native tribes had slavery, it was nothing like US slavery, in which the color of your skin or ethnicity determined if you were a slave or not from 1785 onward.

Early slavery - indentured servitude - did include anyone. But Slavery in the United States became a different creature in which the children of African immigrants, forced or not, were also slaves.

No native american tribe practiced generational slavery.

-Crissa

Count Arioch the 28th · Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:21 am

I can't think of any other culture that did practice generational slavery. Didn't most cultures have some sort of way to become a full citizen, or at least say the children of slaves were not slaves themselves automatically?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:28 am

The Irish and the Inians practiced generational slavery. Seems to b an Aryan thing.

Christian Rome introduced generational slavery. Medieval Europe ran around doing that shit basically until the Black Plague made populations too small to make that workable. When populations rebounded, they instituted it again.

-Username17

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:51 am

@Crissa: the problem is discrimination. The court sent the child to the grandparents to live. Shouldn't the court have been aware of the community, and yet they still decide the child should live there. I think this community may be getting revamped.

What is next? A community that says no blacks allowed? What do you think would happen there? The apartment idea like a rest home for old people I can understand. They are there for assisted living, but a house on your own land? WTF?!?!?!

Would they have a no pets allowed policy, then would they attack seeing eye dogs, even though they are clearly marked as service animals?

Discriminating against each other as adults is one thing, but to discriminate against a child for not being born sooner?

WTF?

I hope whatever court decides to evict or send the 6 year old to foster care ends up having a much coverage as the "balloon boy" and JoP that didn't marry a couple because of being mixed race.

It is high time people learn to worry about themselves and stop being Mrs. Cravitz!

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:40 am

Count wrote:I can't think of any other culture that did practice generational slavery.

Deuteronomy states that if a male slave has children with a female slave and their slavery time is up, they don't get the kids. Unless they agree to be a slave permanently in which... they still don't get the kids, but they can see them.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:29 am

Well, see, the court should've known that because the grandparents should've said so.

You can't have horses and chickens in neighborhoods not built for them, why children?

-Crissa

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:02 pm

Crissa wrote:When you enter a community, you choose to live within its standards.

Uh... seriously? You might to rethink the kid-hate there.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:36 pm

...And how does that face my argument, exactly?

Do white people require special safety, entertainment, educational, physical needs like children and domestic animals different from other colors of people?

You can't just holdup the flag and say 'protected class!' as though every protected class was chosen for the same reason, or that we don't have community standards at all!

-Crissa

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:58 pm

Well, let's see...

Crissa wrote:Do white people require special safety, entertainment, educational, physical needs like children and domestic animals different from other colors of people?

Your complaint isn't about safety, as if somehow an entire non-enclosed non-biodome non-arcology regular 'ol family neighborhood could be unsafe to children. Nope, this is your argument:

Crissa wrote:...My apartment structure was made without thought for children, and yet, children live in it. There's no space for them to play, no space other people can go to get away from their noise.

...And many old people don't want to live around children.

Some folks don't like loud kids. That's okay, they can do that. However, not all kids scream and shout, but if a majority do and one feels justified in not wanting them around because they're seen as a general nuisance, then how is this different than a bunch of white crackers viewing black culture as generally a nuisance to them? Nuisance = not allowed is not going to cut it.

This isn't, "my apartment complex is filled with broken glass and open flames", it is, "my impression of kids is that they're loud and I don't like them" and if that's your standard its a terribly abusable one, because this is the white racist impression of black people:

[INSERT RACIST IMAGE HERE - I'm sure you can just do the Googling yourself for the right effect]

...and that constitutes the nuisance and non-community standard livin' that these racists don't want to be around.

Crissa wrote:When you enter a community, you choose to live within its standards.

Until you define "standards" to be more than "I don't like 'em", you're way out of line here. In fact, this is basically the rationale behind denying you your equal tax rights and the ability to marry, so you probably want to do some real thinking here on this.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:06 pm

Crissa wrote:Well, see, the court should've known that because the grandparents should've said so.

The court probably, hopefully did know IF it was competent. Which in this day and age is doubtful, but I still have a misguided faith in humanity.

So if it was by court order, then wouldn't the community be trying to violate a court order?

Also where the fuck is someone going to come from to a 55+ only community in this economy? Who would want to move there unless they have no kin? So how the hell can these grandparents be able to sell the house and move?

Hey I was a kid, and I don't like them. My neighbor has 6. Fucking can't stand it. As long as they stay in and only destroy their yard I have no problem with them living in THEIR FUCKING HOME, even with the constant baby twins screaming all ours of the day and night.

Like the above picture, the discrimination needs to stop, and the court needs to tell this community that, and maybe just maybe, the people wanting to evict the 6 year old should be taken from their homes and put into assisted living in a rest home, because they might just be a potential threat to others outside of their home, and themselves. I can only imagine what they do in public when kids are around. Probably beat up the kid at the grocery store that comes near them.

This trash needs to be dealt with. I mean tell me Crissa, would you think a community like this would be in the right if they didn't want a gay couple living their and had it in the rules of the HOA to kick them out?

Where do YOU draw the line in the sand to discrimination?

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:52 pm

I see children as a responsibility, like pets. You need to live in a space appropriate to having them, even if that costs more.

I fail to see how having children is more of a right than having purple hair or putting up holiday lights. And why is it suddenly compared (without any arguments as to why) to other protected classes like race or sexual preference?

-Crissa

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:09 pm

Discrimination is discrimination.

Be it against sexual preference, race, sex, religion, OR age; it is ALL discrimination.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:31 pm

A six year old isn't allowed to enter into a contract.

So how is this discrimination?

-Crissa

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:52 pm

shadzar wrote:Discrimination is discrimination.

Be it against sexual preference, race, sex, religion, OR age; it is ALL discrimination.

A tautology is a tautology.

And yet, there is no question to any sane human being, ie not you, that some discrimination are good or appropriate, and others are not.

Driving/Contracts/Having Sex/Working/Voting/and owning property all currently discriminate based on age. It is not radical crazy nazi talk to say that maybe living conditions should be to. Especially since housing communities already have carte blanche to discriminate based on thousands of other factors.

Yes, sex/race are protected classes. Religion sometimes is, and sexual preference isn't except maybe now it is as of two weeks ago. Is your argument that all discrimination based on age is wrong? If it's not, then you have som high fucking hurdles to jump to explain why the government should pass a law preventing discrimination based on age in the specific area of housing, when age is clearly not a protected class.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:02 am

Kaelik wrote:Is your argument that all discrimination based on age is wrong? If it's not, then you have som high fucking hurdles to jump to explain why the government should pass a law preventing discrimination based on age in the specific area of housing, when age is clearly not a protected class.

I know it isn't when the IRS gives tax credits to 4 year olds. They don't discriminate for taxes on getting housing at all! So why allow discrimination on the 6 year old that just needs a place to live? Because the 6 year old, unlike those 4 year olds, didn't properly file and apply for the tax credits?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... GF6QYV3qdk

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:57 am

shadzar wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Is your argument that all discrimination based on age is wrong? If it's not, then you have som high fucking hurdles to jump to explain why the government should pass a law preventing discrimination based on age in the specific area of housing, when age is clearly not a protected class.
I know it isn't when the IRS gives tax credits to 4 year olds. They don't discriminate for taxes on getting housing at all! So why allow discrimination on the 6 year old that just needs a place to live? Because the 6 year old, unlike those 4 year olds, didn't properly file and apply for the tax credits?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... GF6QYV3qdk

No, because you are asking the government to pass a law dictating the actions of a non government private organization. You are infringing their rights to association. As such, you need to present a pretty damn compelling reason for why they would do something like that.

A government regulation of, for example, taxes, can be any damn thing the government wants, and the burden is on you to prove that it infringes your rights.

The government cannot pass laws all willy nilly to regulate the actions of private individuals. See, Boy Scouts of America v Dale.

I know you are a mental five year old with absolutely no knowledge of how the law works whatsoever, but even five year olds can tell the difference between government laws and the actions of private individuals.

Does the fact that the government doesn't ban churches from displaying religious symbols also confuse you? I'll give you a hint, the church is not the government, so when a church promotes religion, it is not establishment.

Similarly, the homeowners association is not the government, so when the homeowners association kicks out children, it has nothing to do with the government tax law.

Some discrimination is good. Admit this, or go the hell away and never speak to anyone again.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 3:40 am

I know very well how the law works, it is based on the golden rule. He who has the money (gold) makes all the rules. Just ask Goldman Sachs.

The Lunatic Fringe · Post by **The Lunatic Fringe** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:14 am

FrankTrollman wrote:The Irish and the Inians practiced generational slavery. Seems to b an Aryan thing.

Christian Rome introduced generational slavery. Medieval Europe ran around doing that shit basically until the Black Plague made populations too small to make that workable. When populations rebounded, they instituted it again.

-Username17

eh?

Generational Slavery? Does that mean something other than "slavery in which the child of a slave is also a slave"?

'Cause if not, that was introduced waaaaay before Christian Rome.

Data Vampire · Post by **Data Vampire** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:14 am

NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN stand up for Fox News

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:36 am

The comments there make me foam at the mouth with rage.

Incidentally, I'm not well-read on American news, so are they also right wing propaganda machines, or are they actual news companies who simply feel it's the right thing?

Data Vampire · Post by **Data Vampire** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:53 am

It depends on who you ask. Glen Beck is more than a little loony, but the rest seem Ok to me.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:04 am

Note: the First Amendment in no way demands that the White House grant an interview to every news organization that happens to have a lot of money. The Bush Administration was constantly handing out exclusives and shit. That the major news networks would suddenly decide that they have principles to protect the moment that the richest network wasn't getting an interview shows how much they don't actually have any principles.

-Username17

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:08 pm

Koumei wrote:Incidentally, I'm not well-read on American news, so are they also right wing propaganda machines, or are they actual news companies who simply feel it's the right thing?

We have FOX, owned by News Corp., headed by Keith Rupert Murdoch, an Australian who became a US citizen so that he could own an American TV company.

So our Right Wing News machine is probably very similar to your Right Wing News machine.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:36 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Note: the First Amendment in no way demands that the White House grant an interview to every news organization that happens to have a lot of money. The Bush Administration was constantly handing out exclusives and shit. That the major news networks would suddenly decide that they have principles to protect the moment that the richest network wasn't getting an interview shows how much they don't actually have any principles.

-Username17

Not to mention that Fox News is news in name only, and has more viewers recently because of Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly because everyone wants to laugh at those nutjobs and "pinheads". Throw in Joe in the Morning, and they are funnier than John & Kate +8. I always call Fox News Channel, Comedy Central 2 (but without the Battle Bots).

The first Amendment protects Fox News right to say all the stupid shit they say against the government without prosecution. Like you say, it doesn't give them the right to enter the White House. I thought people had to take psyche tests before coming into contact with a political official anyway, and many on Fox News wouldn't pass one. I could see Beck throwing a shoe at Obama. Hell last night he got out a baseball bat when talking about Obama.

This country has lost all journalistic ethics and integrity since many people DO follow Fox News reports as gospel. Just look at how quickly CNN jumped on the 9-11 Coast Guard exercise right along with Fox, yet everyone else was doing research on what was going on before claiming it was a terrorist.

Sadly all "news" channels are only going after sensationalist TV these days. Just look at all the coverage given to the "balloon boy".

At least one guy on CNN last night said something intelligent. That Fox wasn't really giving news and had no journalists, they only had characters giving their opinions. There just happens to be some recent events mixed in with their heavy opinion pieces, but little to no real news.

I am glad the White House disconnected themselves from Fox, but wish they had had the balls to follow through with anything.

Frank, would you say the news lost principles before or after Nixon?