No.

If I tell my lawyer about a child I abused years ago he can do exactly nothing as there is no imminent crime to prevent that would allow him breaking confidality.

If I tell my priest the same applies.

If you want to change that, change the laws binding those people. But don’t pretend that the church is going out of its way to protect child abuse by in reality doing nothing and applying the same rule indiscriminately exactly like they did for a millenium.

or you have so little faith in your church

I will tell you a secret: Not everything in the world is about tribes or team sports. I personally deem any organized religion as an abomination.

But when a “remember that the confession’s confidentiality is absolute, has been exactly like this for nearly a millenium and you are beholden to god’s/church laws first an foremost” (so the same unchanged statement as always) is reframed as the church somehow explicitly going out of its way to protect child abuse specifically people should actually notice that they are being manipulated.

Are you seriously arguing that child abusers should be protected by the church because of historical precedent?

No I’m arguing that it is well within your rights to argue for changes in that basically ancient church law. If that’s what you want to do, go one. I would actually agree.

But if you instead pretend that this is not about the seal of confession but hallucinate how the modern church is somehow going out of its way to protect child abuse (like a lot of commenters here do) you have completely lost the plot.

No, I am arguing for a church law established nearly 1000 years ago and upheld ever since that indiscriminately protects all confessions. If you want to argue for changing this (as you should) go along.

But pretending that this is about protecting child abuse or even -as multiple comments here do- hallucinating how the catholic church “goes out of its way” (by doing exactly the same aus in the last ~900 years) is insane.

The Catholic Church is going out of its way to protect child abusers

Nearly 1000 years of a confession’s confidentiality being absolute and the punishment for violating it being excommunication, is the exact opposite of “going out of its way”.

Congratulations. You fell for propaganda by stupid framing.

This is not actually about child abuse per se. It’s also not about “warning” priests.

This is a simple and factual reminder: Confessions are part of a protected sacrament and the seal of confession is absolute and always has been (or at least for nearly a millenium). To violate it means excommunication.

I wonder if you would react with the same outrage when this was a bar association reminding their lawyers of the disciplinary consequences of violating confidentiality agreements.

Sacrificing a jet to protect the ship isn’t the problem. The problem is that there shouldn’t be a situation where that’s a choice you have to make. And I would bet a lot that it actually was no intentional choice at all.

Most ships in a carrier strike group have basically one job: to protect the carrier. Imagine a situation where a drone/missile is launched, detected from far away and yet there is no ship available to intercept it when that’s basically their whole f***ing job and doing an evasive maneuver with such a fast and nimble object as a carrier seems like your best option. That’s basically a whole chain of fuck-ups. The deck crew performing accordingly and having screwed up securing a jet, too, is just the cherry on top.

When coloring stuff with Carmine (used for ~3000 years by now) becomes a revolutionary idea in the US…

PS: Also civilised regions are actually thinking about replacements as that color is often used in food that would be vegan without it.

Nazis are only pro-power. Everything else is just a means to an end.

They don’t actually care who they are advocating against. There is only one constant: They are the ones at the top, destined to rule, and the masses need to be controlled by pitting them against some “enemy”. That enemy is always replaceable because it needs to be replaced every time they accidently “solve” a problem or need a change of narrative.

Police are explicitly trained to keep firing until the person at the very least collapses, and will often shoot people on the ground if it looks like they are reaching for or aiming a weapon.

Which is the sane thing to do.

Not investing the time to train them properly so they can judge situations correctly but indeed ingrain the idea that everyone is out to kill them is the problem. In a society where everyone can indeed suddenly draw a gun on you even more so.

Were can I get a browser addon to autoreplace any “Trump says <insert random statement here>.” with “Trump lies again.” (no I don’t even care about what this time…)?

https://oec.world/en/profile/country/usa?selector343id=Export#bespoke-title-337

Yes it was. The short answer to your question is very obvious: because he can get away with it and it gives him a feeling of power to threaten people. It’s the why OP answered for you.

People writing such biased and one-sided bullshit are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Actual hate (and other) crimes happen as part of protests. So does wrongful prosecution for made up infractions to suppress certain opinions.

As long as legitmate protestors and the media supporting them blindly fails to even acknowledge the possibiltyof actual criminals in their ranks and thus fails to distance themselves they are simply enabling their opposition.

As for every topic, whether it’s political, social or anything else: If you managed to let it devolve into tribalism you have already lost.

Also nowadays cars are updated constantly. So you better already collected your evidence as they simply won’t do it anymore now (until after the courts have ruled in their favor for a lack of evidence…)

That’ll teach me to comment before reading

That’s okay. Given people’s habit of just reading headlines and then commenting, your comment has a better chance to be read than the article… 😉

You are looking at this from the wrong perspective…

It’s “causing brain damage to get more voters”.

You mean the ban defined by the International* (Norwegian) Holocaust Remembrance Alliance

No, I don’t mean any absurd definition by a zionist lobbying organisation with the primary goal of shielding Israel’s right-wing zealots from any criticism, but simple common sense.

So when I hear people chant “From the river to the sea” - I (and solidarity scholars) don’t see that as a call to violence against Jewish people

You don’t see that “From the river to the sea” used by people that -exactly like Israel’s insane government- vehemently deny a two state solution makes a very clear statement about the continued existence of Israel, or more precisely the non-existence? You don’t see how morons in Germany cheering for the attacks of October 7 2023 and offereing food and candy to passersby in celebration on the streets were very well understood to have used that slogan in exactly one way? That’s interesting… if only in a sense that I now know that reality is lost on you.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod