I confess that for the second time in as many weeks, Biden has deeply disappointed me. First, he sold out the rail unions, and now he is trading a convicted terrorist arms dealer for a drug-using (obviously she wasn't a drug *dealer*, but she clearly used the stuff, and knew that it was illegal in Russia, and obviously, as an entitled rich pro jock, thinks the rules do not apply to her) basketball player. 'Humanitarian' concerns are cited, but precious little humanitarian concerns are being shown for the past Third World (mostly African) victims of The Merchant of Death, let alone for any future such victims of his (anyone think he is just going to retire?). And does anyone agree with me that if it absolutely positively had to be the case that we had to trade TMOD for Griner, that we should at least have insisted that Paul Whelan be released as well?
My friends who follow this kind of politics tell me that Bout is a has-been who is of no actual value to anybody; why Russia wants him is a mystery. As for Griner, it may well be that she, like many other Americans (most of whom are not "entitled rich pro jocks") was in possession of some medical cannabis; but I also do not find it impossible to believe that the Russians sometimes imprison people for manufactured offenses and political gain. They may have been heard to do that once or twice in the past. But Griner's sentence of nine and a half years, in a penal colony reliably reported to require 16-hour days of hard labor, is out of line even with Russia's brutal prison system.
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 09, 2022, 10:28:13 PM
I confess that for the second time in as many weeks, Biden has deeply disappointed me. First, he sold out the rail unions, and now he is trading a convicted terrorist arms dealer for a drug-using (obviously she wasn't a drug *dealer*, but she clearly used the stuff, and knew that it was illegal in Russia, and obviously, as an entitled rich pro jock, thinks the rules do not apply to her) basketball player. 'Humanitarian' concerns are cited, but precious little humanitarian concerns are being shown for the past Third World (mostly African) victims of The Merchant of Death, let alone for any future such victims of his (anyone think he is just going to retire?). And does anyone agree with me that if it absolutely positively had to be the case that we had to trade TMOD for Griner, that we should at least have insisted that Paul Whelan be released as well?
Putin wouldn't trade Whalen for Bout. Would you have him just leave Griner there?
Quote from: nebo113 on December 10, 2022, 05:04:34 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 09, 2022, 10:28:13 PM
I confess that for the second time in as many weeks, Biden has deeply disappointed me. First, he sold out the rail unions, and now he is trading a convicted terrorist arms dealer for a drug-using (obviously she wasn't a drug *dealer*, but she clearly used the stuff, and knew that it was illegal in Russia, and obviously, as an entitled rich pro jock, thinks the rules do not apply to her) basketball player. 'Humanitarian' concerns are cited, but precious little humanitarian concerns are being shown for the past Third World (mostly African) victims of The Merchant of Death, let alone for any future such victims of his (anyone think he is just going to retire?). And does anyone agree with me that if it absolutely positively had to be the case that we had to trade TMOD for Griner, that we should at least have insisted that Paul Whelan be released as well?
Putin wouldn't trade Whalen for Bout. Would you have him just leave Griner there?
This is the bottom line and at the end of the day I think Biden did the right thing here. But it does set a troubling precedent when an authoritarian government can essentially kidnap an American citizen and trade them for a war criminal (not that this is the first time the US has made trades like this).
Quote from: nebo113 on December 10, 2022, 05:04:34 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 09, 2022, 10:28:13 PM
I confess that for the second time in as many weeks, Biden has deeply disappointed me. First, he sold out the rail unions, and now he is trading a convicted terrorist arms dealer for a drug-using (obviously she wasn't a drug *dealer*, but she clearly used the stuff, and knew that it was illegal in Russia, and obviously, as an entitled rich pro jock, thinks the rules do not apply to her) basketball player. 'Humanitarian' concerns are cited, but precious little humanitarian concerns are being shown for the past Third World (mostly African) victims of The Merchant of Death, let alone for any future such victims of his (anyone think he is just going to retire?). And does anyone agree with me that if it absolutely positively had to be the case that we had to trade TMOD for Griner, that we should at least have insisted that Paul Whelan be released as well?
Putin wouldn't trade Whalen for Bout. Would you have him just leave Griner there?
Right, they clearly stated that they tried and that was simply not a trade Russia would make, but they are still working on his case. It's a pretty different case since he was charged with espionage (whether or not that is true).
Also apparently Bout only had 6 years left on his sentence, so it's not like he went scot free, more like early release.
I guess you could argue that the US should never make such exchanges, but we always have and as far as I know most other countries do too.
No U.S. president was going to let rail workers strike, so I don't blame any president for getting involved. Prisoner exchanges are usually unpopular, because the authoritarian regime usually has the upper hand in holding Americans who get harsh sentences for minor crimes.
I'm not going to lose too much sleep. Bout seemed to be good at forming personal relationships. I don't think he'll be back in the business in a significant role.
Random points:
1) What evidence do you have to suggest Bout will not rapidly return to his business activities?
2) Bout's 25 year sentence, whilst the max for the crime for which he was actually able to be convicted, is a slap on the wrist for the overall acts of which he is guilty. And most of his victims were Third Worlders in places like Africa.
3) His release is essentially giving license to other autocrats desirous of getting guys like Bout out of our slammers, to trump up extra charges against Americans to use as trade bait.
4) Griner is an entitled jock, who was making $1.5m to play pro ball in Russia, and whose agent must have made it absolutely clear to her that she in no wise was to take the dope there. She did it anyhow.
5) Does anyone for a millisecond believe that had Griner been a white, heterosexual, male, non-rich jock, that he would have been traded to the Ivans for a war criminal?
As I understand it, Griner had less than a gram of hashish oil in her luggage. Not smart, but I don't think that deserves a decade in a Rooskie prison. What does an ad hom about being a "rich jock" have to do with it?
On the one hand, Biden saved an American citizen. As POTUS, the health and safety of American citizens should be his primary concern. Russia is a rogue nation as far as I am concerned.
On the other hand, this was probably a PR ploy that worked. That's politics.
The rail workers' strike would have put hundreds of thousands of people out of work and crippled the nation. Don't pretend that is not of national importance. Now is time to loudly and publicly support our rail workers, not blame the prez for doing what he had to do.
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 10, 2022, 08:18:43 PM
Random points:
1) What evidence do you have to suggest Bout will not rapidly return to his business activities?
2) Bout's 25 year sentence, whilst the max for the crime for which he was actually able to be convicted, is a slap on the wrist for the overall acts of which he is guilty. And most of his victims were Third Worlders in places like Africa.
3) His release is essentially giving license to other autocrats desirous of getting guys like Bout out of our slammers, to trump up extra charges against Americans to use as trade bait.
4) Griner is an entitled jock, who was making $1.5m to play pro ball in Russia, and whose agent must have made it absolutely clear to her that she in no wise was to take the dope there. She did it anyhow.
5) Does anyone for a millisecond believe that had Griner been a white, heterosexual, male, non-rich jock, that he would have been traded to the Ivans for a war criminal?
For someone who professes to be a person of deep Christian faith, your apparent desire to leave her in a brutal Russian penal colony seems to belie the compassion of your savior.
Griner chose to go to Russia, despite a travel advisory, and hadn't bothered to comply with the drug laws of the host country. If she had been caught with drugs in certain countries such as Singapore, she would be facing a death sentence.
She sounds like some of the entitled students in the teaching threads who expect passing grades despite a combination of poor attendance, unfamiliarity with the course materials, and missed assignments.
Maybe, but if this had been Aaron Judge sitting in a Russian prison or LeBron, they'd be out already.
i think Biden did the right thing. Other governments do similar trades all the time. its troubling, but its how you gwt your people back. Whether or not she made a dumb mistale is not really relevant. Is it a decade in a penal colony sort of mistake?
Quote from: Langue_doc on December 11, 2022, 06:21:14 AM
Griner chose to go to Russia, despite a travel advisory, and hadn't bothered to comply with the drug laws of the host country. If she had been caught with drugs in certain countries such as Singapore, she would be facing a death sentence.
She sounds like some of the entitled students in the teaching threads who expect passing grades despite a combination of poor attendance, unfamiliarity with the course materials, and missed assignments.
All of that may be true (and the entitled white UVA dude who was nabbed in N. Korea) , but getting her back was the right thing to do.
Moreover, Singapore doesn't arrest foreigners to use as political pawns.
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 10, 2022, 08:18:43 PM
Random points:
1) What evidence do you have to suggest Bout will not rapidly return to his business activities?
2) Bout's 25 year sentence, whilst the max for the crime for which he was actually able to be convicted, is a slap on the wrist for the overall acts of which he is guilty. And most of his victims were Third Worlders in places like Africa.
3) His release is essentially giving license to other autocrats desirous of getting guys like Bout out of our slammers, to trump up extra charges against Americans to use as trade bait.
4) Griner is an entitled jock, who was making $1.5m to play pro ball in Russia, and whose agent must have made it absolutely clear to her that she in no wise was to take the dope there. She did it anyhow.
5) Does anyone for a millisecond believe that had Griner been a white, heterosexual, male, non-rich jock, that he would have been traded to the Ivans for a war criminal?
Remember this guy: Bowe Bergdahl
I believe she was there because she plays there in the off-season. Has she indicated she will never, ever go there again now, with or without her stash?
Quote from: nebo113 on December 11, 2022, 06:49:33 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on December 11, 2022, 06:21:14 AM
Griner chose to go to Russia, despite a travel advisory, and hadn't bothered to comply with the drug laws of the host country. If she had been caught with drugs in certain countries such as Singapore, she would be facing a death sentence.
She sounds like some of the entitled students in the teaching threads who expect passing grades despite a combination of poor attendance, unfamiliarity with the course materials, and missed assignments.
All of that may be true (and the entitled white UVA dude who was nabbed in N. Korea) , but getting her back was the right thing to do.
Moreover, Singapore doesn't arrest foreigners to use as political pawns.
My point is that ignoring the travel advisory and willingly traveling to Russia with drugs however minuscule, knowing full well their reputation on human rights, the official attitude to LGBT, and the drug laws, comes across as snowflakery at its worst.
I'm not into sports, but very much doubt that Aaron Judge would have ignored a travel advisory--his manager would certainly dissuaded him from going to Russia.
Griner made $200k a year playing in the WNBA. Quite normal for players to go over there during the WNBA off season.
Don't think these players are going back any time soon.
I just through out the name "Aaron Judge" to make the point that if a well-known male heterosexual ball player (and also now quite wealthy and influential) had been jailed for whatever reason, we'd have gotten him out by now (with much less blow back--but probably some). He has a reputation for being pretty well behaved and all, so, yeah, I doubt the situation would have occurred with him in particular, but imagine a somewhat better male counterpart who has a rep for slipping up a bit (but is still well known and rich).
Let's say Josh Hamilton or Ryan Leaf was in Russian prison on a drug charge.
Griner was in Russia as until recently it was THE country for WNBA stars to compete during their off season. Many made more money, and were treated better there in terms of housing while playing than they are in the US.
The whole thread is crazy to me. My beliefs are the same as Whelan's brother's.
1) Whelan's brother (and the rest of his family) have absolutely *no incentive* to say anything negative or contrarian here. Really, they do not, lest they risk a) Putin going harder on Whelan, perhaps including never agreeing to release him for anyone, and b) pissing off Biden
2) Griner and her apologists ask us to believe that she 'forgot' the hash was in her suitcase, which she had packed for her trip to a well-paid ($1.5m) off-season gig playing Rooskie pro ball. This does not pass the smell test, unless she is a blithering idiot, which no one has accused her of being (and she is also no child, at 31). She packed the suitcase, for the trip, and packed the stash in it, and obviously had to have been made well aware of the illegality of taking it to Mother Russia, and, esp since she also had to have known of the Rooskies' strong hostility towards homosexuals. Obviously she thought her desire to vape up was greater than her need to obey the law of the country which was going to host her and pay her big dollars. And there is no way that a white male jock/ slash junkie like Leaf or Hamilton would have been swapped for a bucket of balls in a similar circumstance-- just exactly who would have been the American constituency arguing for such an exchange?
3) WRT the rail strike aversion, as I said earlier, this is a bifurcation fallacy-- of course no US president of either party would have allowed the strike, and a GOP president would have done much the same as Biden did do. But Biden did not have to do what he did. He was well within his rights to force the railroads to give the unions the paid sick leave and a return to the pre-covid, much more humane scheduling policies that they had had before, and he, despite his protestations as to his being the most pro-labor POTUS ever, punted, lamely asserting that he and Pelosi trusted that the GOPers would pass a corresponding bill giving the union some of these things, which, of course, they laughed at doing. It will be very interesting to see how Marty Walsh deals with unions going forward.
Now, as to the insulting, nonsensical, really genuinely disguisting assertion that my refusal to agree to the Griner-Bout deal is somehow indicative of my being a hypocritical sub-Christian, etc., words fail me. Griner, whilst overpunished (assuming we buy the idea, likely true, that she was not actually a trafficker in dope in Rooskiestan), was a criminal, as is clear, and Viktor Bout is a disgusting mass-murdering war criminal who will almost certainly return to his activities safely in the bosom of Uncle Vlad (why else do you think he wanted Bout back, or did the Russian MP Boutina, formerly a US-incarcerated spy, praise him on state TV when he returned?)? Where the hell is the 'Christian compassion' for his former victims, let alone his likely future ones? But hey, a rich lesbian druggie is free, so it must be a sacrifice worth making.
Quote
But hey, a rich lesbian druggie is free, so it must be a sacrifice worth making.
I cannot imagine why anyone would doubt your devotion to the Prince of Peace.
Kaysixteen, why are you so obsessed with her race and sexual orientation? If you think the US shouldn't make exchanges like this as a matter of policy then you can say so, but it is hard to take you seriously when you keep obsessing about her race/sexuality, especially after we've cited numerous white men who were involved in exchanges just like this.
Awright, I will say it: I hate drugs. They suck. Period and end of discussion. Most of ye have probably not had the experience, at least not in recent years, of working a low-grade retail job in a drug-riddled decayed mill town, where a substantial percentage of the clientele are either folks who have ruined their own lives with drugs (yes, including whaccky tobaccky), or are family members caught in the netherworld of a loved one who has done this. And these people are by-and-large poor, uneducated, casualties of the new economic America, not rich, entitled jocks whose very fame and popularity makes them role models, sadly, for people like the kids here in Rusty City.
And, of course, the Prince of Peace sends unrepentant homosexuals to Hell, as Paul, writing under the inspiration of that Prince's Spirit, makes clear enough, in Romans 1. No one has died and authorized me to ignore this.
Seems like your own biases and hangups make it hard for you to look at this objectively.
The first point that we should all agree on is that people shouldn't be sentenced to do hard labor in a Russian gulag because they smoke pot. From there, reasonable people can disagree as to whether the exchange was good policy.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2022, 09:06:11 PM
Seems like your own biases and hangups make it hard for you to look at this objectively.
The first point that we should all agree on is that people shouldn't be sentenced to do hard labor in a Russian gulag because they smoke pot. From there, reasonable people can disagree as to whether the exchange was good policy.
What we
think is irrelevant. What the
laws are in a
foreign country,
especially an authoritarian one, is what matters. The stupid idiot who got in trouble for vandalism in North Korea was
completely the author of his own fate. Most importantly, a
sovereign state is able to do whatever the heck they want with someone within its borders, so anyone without enough brains to realize what that means shouldn't be allowed to travel on their own.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 12, 2022, 05:17:24 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2022, 09:06:11 PM
Seems like your own biases and hangups make it hard for you to look at this objectively.
The first point that we should all agree on is that people shouldn't be sentenced to do hard labor in a Russian gulag because they smoke pot. From there, reasonable people can disagree as to whether the exchange was good policy.
What we think is irrelevant. What the laws are in a foreign country, especially an authoritarian one, is what matters. The stupid idiot who got in trouble for vandalism in North Korea was completely the author of his own fate. Most importantly, a sovereign state is able to do whatever the heck they want with someone within its borders, so anyone without enough brains to realize what that means shouldn't be allowed to travel on their own.
Nobody is saying it is smart to put yourself in such a position or that Griner showed good judgement. But when a US citizen is unjustly locked in a penal colony abroad for a trivial infraction, the US government has every right and responsibility to try to bring them home. Whether this particular exchange was a good one (or whether exchanges like these in which the crimes are drastically different in severity, which are common, should be carried out or not) is a policy debate that reasonable people can disagree on.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2022, 07:04:02 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 12, 2022, 05:17:24 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2022, 09:06:11 PM
Seems like your own biases and hangups make it hard for you to look at this objectively.
The first point that we should all agree on is that people shouldn't be sentenced to do hard labor in a Russian gulag because they smoke pot. From there, reasonable people can disagree as to whether the exchange was good policy.
What we think is irrelevant. What the laws are in a foreign country, especially an authoritarian one, is what matters. The stupid idiot who got in trouble for vandalism in North Korea was completely the author of his own fate. Most importantly, a sovereign state is able to do whatever the heck they want with someone within its borders, so anyone without enough brains to realize what that means shouldn't be allowed to travel on their own.
Nobody is saying it is smart to put yourself in such a position or that Griner showed good judgement. But when a US citizen is unjustly locked in a penal colony abroad for a trivial infraction, the US government has every right and responsibility to try to bring them home.
I make a big distinction between
fake charges, (where a foreign government makes them up to get leverage), and
evidence-based charges on illegal activity in that country,
even if it's legal elsewhere. I especially get annoyed at people who do these things
knowingly, counting on their passport to get them out. If you don't like the laws somewhere, don't go there or don't break them when you're there. The government does have a legitimate role in helping people when there are questions about the
legality of the charges.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 12, 2022, 07:33:06 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2022, 07:04:02 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 12, 2022, 05:17:24 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2022, 09:06:11 PM
Seems like your own biases and hangups make it hard for you to look at this objectively.
The first point that we should all agree on is that people shouldn't be sentenced to do hard labor in a Russian gulag because they smoke pot. From there, reasonable people can disagree as to whether the exchange was good policy.
What we think is irrelevant. What the laws are in a foreign country, especially an authoritarian one, is what matters. The stupid idiot who got in trouble for vandalism in North Korea was completely the author of his own fate. Most importantly, a sovereign state is able to do whatever the heck they want with someone within its borders, so anyone without enough brains to realize what that means shouldn't be allowed to travel on their own.
Nobody is saying it is smart to put yourself in such a position or that Griner showed good judgement. But when a US citizen is unjustly locked in a penal colony abroad for a trivial infraction, the US government has every right and responsibility to try to bring them home.
I make a big distinction between fake charges, (where a foreign government makes them up to get leverage), and evidence-based charges on illegal activity in that country, even if it's legal elsewhere. I especially get annoyed at people who do these things knowingly, counting on their passport to get them out. If you don't like the laws somewhere, don't go there or don't break them when you're there. The government does have a legitimate role in helping people when there are questions about the legality of the charges.
I agree that it is annoying. She made a dumb mistake and that the consequences are significant. But the dumb mistake of entering a foreign country with some pot should not result in someone spending a decade in a labor camp. When that someone is an American citizen, the US government should (imo) try to get them out.
That said, I doubt that she played this out in her mind in the way you suggest with the bolded.
Griner's "snowflakery," as Langue_doc so aptly put it, makes her a highly unsympathetic victim. But a victim and U.S. citizen in need nonetheless. The President didn't really have much choice about doing some kind of a deal for her release. It is to be hoped that she and others learn from her example about things not to do when traveling abroad, or even where not to travel in the first place.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2022, 07:59:40 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 12, 2022, 07:33:06 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2022, 07:04:02 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 12, 2022, 05:17:24 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2022, 09:06:11 PM
Seems like your own biases and hangups make it hard for you to look at this objectively.
The first point that we should all agree on is that people shouldn't be sentenced to do hard labor in a Russian gulag because they smoke pot. From there, reasonable people can disagree as to whether the exchange was good policy.
What we think is irrelevant. What the laws are in a foreign country, especially an authoritarian one, is what matters. The stupid idiot who got in trouble for vandalism in North Korea was completely the author of his own fate. Most importantly, a sovereign state is able to do whatever the heck they want with someone within its borders, so anyone without enough brains to realize what that means shouldn't be allowed to travel on their own.
Nobody is saying it is smart to put yourself in such a position or that Griner showed good judgement. But when a US citizen is unjustly locked in a penal colony abroad for a trivial infraction, the US government has every right and responsibility to try to bring them home.
I make a big distinction between fake charges, (where a foreign government makes them up to get leverage), and evidence-based charges on illegal activity in that country, even if it's legal elsewhere. I especially get annoyed at people who do these things knowingly, counting on their passport to get them out. If you don't like the laws somewhere, don't go there or don't break them when you're there. The government does have a legitimate role in helping people when there are questions about the legality of the charges.
I agree that it is annoying. She made a dumb mistake and that the consequences are significant. But the dumb mistake of entering a foreign country with some pot should not result in someone spending a decade in a labor camp. When that someone is an American citizen, the US government should (imo) try to get them out.
That said, I doubt that she played this out in her mind in the way you suggest with the bolded.
What about when someone
tries to smuggle drugs into (or out of) some country with harsher penalties? There are stories like this in the news every so often. Should government resources be spent on getting people out of jail in a foreign country when they knew they were doing something that is
even illegal at home?
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 12, 2022, 08:08:25 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2022, 07:59:40 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 12, 2022, 07:33:06 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2022, 07:04:02 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 12, 2022, 05:17:24 AM
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 11, 2022, 09:06:11 PM
Seems like your own biases and hangups make it hard for you to look at this objectively.
The first point that we should all agree on is that people shouldn't be sentenced to do hard labor in a Russian gulag because they smoke pot. From there, reasonable people can disagree as to whether the exchange was good policy.
What we think is irrelevant. What the laws are in a foreign country, especially an authoritarian one, is what matters. The stupid idiot who got in trouble for vandalism in North Korea was completely the author of his own fate. Most importantly, a sovereign state is able to do whatever the heck they want with someone within its borders, so anyone without enough brains to realize what that means shouldn't be allowed to travel on their own.
Nobody is saying it is smart to put yourself in such a position or that Griner showed good judgement. But when a US citizen is unjustly locked in a penal colony abroad for a trivial infraction, the US government has every right and responsibility to try to bring them home.
I make a big distinction between fake charges, (where a foreign government makes them up to get leverage), and evidence-based charges on illegal activity in that country, even if it's legal elsewhere. I especially get annoyed at people who do these things knowingly, counting on their passport to get them out. If you don't like the laws somewhere, don't go there or don't break them when you're there. The government does have a legitimate role in helping people when there are questions about the legality of the charges.
I agree that it is annoying. She made a dumb mistake and that the consequences are significant. But the dumb mistake of entering a foreign country with some pot should not result in someone spending a decade in a labor camp. When that someone is an American citizen, the US government should (imo) try to get them out.
That said, I doubt that she played this out in her mind in the way you suggest with the bolded.
What about when someone tries to smuggle drugs into (or out of) some country with harsher penalties? There are stories like this in the news every so often. Should government resources be spent on getting people out of jail in a foreign country when they knew they were doing something that is even illegal at home?
It depends on the circumstances. Did the person get a ridiculously long and harsh sentence in a labor camp for bringing some pot in for personal use? Is the country in question ruled by an authoritarian government which is in the midst of a proxy war with the US? Is the judicial system independent, such that the regime is prevented for arbitrarily punishing the person or treat them as a bargaining chip?
No, reasonable people cannot agree to disagree as to whether it is reasonable to trade a knowing drug user for a war criminal, especially when all likelihood suggests that said war criminal will continue to victimize the world going forward. Why is this difficult? Not by any reasonable definition of 'reasonable'. it isn't.
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 12, 2022, 10:02:10 AM
No, reasonable people cannot agree to disagree as to whether it is reasonable to trade a knowing drug user for a war criminal, especially when all likelihood suggests that said war criminal will continue to victimize the world going forward. Why is this difficult? Not by any reasonable definition of 'reasonable'. it isn't.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/15/us/brittney-griner-trial-russia-friday/index.html
Perhaps you might revisit the facts, and then practice of compassion, even for a black lesbian.
" In Russia, cannabis is illegal. An individual possessing less than 6 grams of cannabis or two grams of hash can be fined or jailed for up to 15 days. Possessing any more than that becomes a more serious criminal offense.
Ms Griner was accused of having less than a gram."
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 11, 2022, 08:41:13 PM
Awright, I will say it: I hate drugs. They suck. Period and end of discussion. Most of ye have probably not had the experience, at least not in recent years, of working a low-grade retail job in a drug-riddled decayed mill town, where a substantial percentage of the clientele are either folks who have ruined their own lives with drugs (yes, including whaccky tobaccky), or are family members caught in the netherworld of a loved one who has done this. And these people are by-and-large poor, uneducated, casualties of the new economic America, not rich, entitled jocks whose very fame and popularity makes them role models, sadly, for people like the kids here in Rusty City.
And, of course, the Prince of Peace sends unrepentant homosexuals to Hell, as Paul, writing under the inspiration of that Prince's Spirit, makes clear enough, in Romans 1. No one has died and authorized me to ignore this.
I am a recovering drug addict myself and lost a sister to meth. I know well the ravages of mind-altering substances.
In in your mind Griner's mistake of carrying a tiny amount of hashish oil is comparable to your experiences?
My extended Boomer family was ravaged by alcoholism, as is my wife's. None were rich jocks. My grandfather died in an alcoholic stupor. They would all go off on the evils of drugs. They looked at drugs as a sociological failure completely separated from their own overt addictions. Drug addicts were to be looked down upon. Wine, anyone? Very ironic.
You know, kay, I know virtually nothing about psychology except those theories that relate to literary criticism, and I only have a functional grasp on history, but I do know what the great authors on American slavery (W.E.B. Dubois, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Alice Walker, Toni Morrison, Octavia Butler) all write about how slavery hurts not only the enslaved but also the slave owners. Slavery destroys the owner through hate and power. We are talking about Christians, you know, as sure of their theological bigotries as you are about yours.
I see you somehow as an analogy.
How does any of this make your life better? You appear to be seething with resentment and rage, and your Prince of Peace is a brutal sociopath.
You've largely lost any "power" that the Christian community once might have had over the gay community, which leaves you with just your hate, which for some reason you come here to vent.
I would give you the same advice I gave Mahag----seek help.
Russian TV talk show discusses the Griner story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l2IgY9QYNw
Let's not start slagging Russians as "Rooskies", or gay people for their sexual orientation.
What Griner did (if she did, in fact, do it) was pretty stupid. But people do stupid things, often simply by mistake. It's also clear that she was a political prisoner, and unjustly imprisoned. For my part, I see no harm in one country doing what it can to repatriate those of its citizens imprisoned on political grounds. She was a low-value prisoner traded for another low-value prisoner. As I see it, everybody gets a symbolic victory with this exchange.
A bit of a sidetrack, but I find it interesting too that no-one is discussing that many WNBA players work in other countries in large part due to the enormous misogyny inherent in American (and global) sports. They can't command the salaries the men's teams, even when, like with soccer, they far outperform the men.
Everything about this situation sucks, but I am glad to that President Biden and his National Security team were able to on balance find an opportunity to show compassion and bring home Brittany Griner. I have nothing in common with her (except for also making some bad choices and dumb mistakes on occasion), but she is still a fellow human and I'm glad she's back with her family.
I'm sorry, but I intend to slag on the damn Russians.
Griner should have taken Latin.
Quote from: Istiblennius on December 12, 2022, 02:11:53 PM
A bit of a sidetrack, but I find it interesting too that no-one is discussing that many WNBA players work in other countries in large part due to the enormous misogyny inherent in American (and global) sports. They can't command the salaries the men's teams, even when, like with soccer, they far outperform the men.
Not to open a whole
other can of worms, but the definition of "outperform" here is very much in question. Practially speaking, it's the audience size that determines profitability, and womens' team sports don't remotely match mens' in this regard. If they can get the paying fans, the money will follow.
"Outperform" in the sense that they are better athletes at their game. In other words, the fact that they're making a pittance compared to the male athletes is not through any lack of talent or achievement on their part.
Quote from: Hegemony on December 12, 2022, 04:01:11 PM
"Outperform" in the sense that they are better athletes at their game. In other words, the fact that they're making a pittance compared to the male athletes is not through any lack of talent or achievement on their part.
I knew that was coming! :-)
The market does not reward virtuosity or virtue. It rewards what people are willing to pay for. Bill Gates gets the cash, not Mother Theresa, and not female athletes.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 12, 2022, 02:18:49 PM
I'm sorry, but I intend to slag on the damn Russians.
Sure. But not by using derogatory terms to refer to them, yeah? (Compare: Pakistan does some very bad things, but I think we can agree that we shouldn't call Pakistanis 'Pakis'.)
Yes I have to agree with Marsh and Dismalist on this one. NBA players make a ton of money because their labor brings in a ton of revenue. WNBA players, not so much. I also do not agree that WNBA players are better athletes in their game than NBA players, but that's more subjective.
That said, it is true that WNBA players go abroad to make extra money in the off season and this is quite understandable given their pay (league average is $100k per year and average career span is 5-6 years).
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2022, 04:51:32 PM
Yes I have to agree with Marsh and Dismalist on this one. NBA players make a ton of money because their labor brings in a ton of revenue. WNBA players, not so much. I also do not agree that WNBA players are better athletes in their game than NBA players, but that's more subjective.
That said, it is true that WNBA players go abroad to make extra money in the off season and this is quite understandable given their pay (league average is $100k per year and average career span is 5-6 years).
And Russia was by far the best place to do so. Best salaries, best treatment. Until it wasn't.
Let's not kid ourselves. She MAY have stupidly had hash oil. She MAY have been set up. Either way, it is clear that Putin used her.
There is another American there (61 year old male) held on similar charges. The US has not, to date, declared him unjustly prisoned. He is also being held largely as a bartering chip.
I suppose I could disengage from this, but I did start it.
1) Viktor Bout was in no sense of the term a 'low-value prisoner'-- are you nuts? Do you have rocks in your brain? He is a scumbag of the first order, and has the blood of thousands on his hands. Every day that he will not be incarcerated is a day that he can also continue his activities, safe in Putin's protection whilst drinking vodka at a Black Sea dacha, or something like this. Now tell me how it would be that you could explain to the families of some hapless Third World victims of revolutionaries, terrorists, or the like, to whom Bout sells weapons next year, when said bad guys use said weapons to blow up innocents? 'we're sorry, but we really had to get this druggie ballplayer out', really just won't cut it.
2) There is no question of Griner's guilt as to the possession charge. Whether she was planning on selling any of this, is much less probable, but she was in no sense 'set up' (even the US govt does not claim that, and she herself acknowledged her guilt on that possession charge. She sortta just fell into Putin's lap, and he ran with it. But as has been pointed out regularly here already, she well knew 1) what she was doing, and 2) it was wholly illegal in Russia, and 3) she could expect bad consequences for doing it. She may or may not have planned on trying to cash in on her wealth, fame, and yes, sexual orientation (I have read and heard many commentators essentially say that we had a moral obligation to spring her, precisely because of how gays are treated in Russia), but she and especially her American cheerleaders certainly tried hard, with great success, to do exactly this (how many Americans, guilty of various drug offenses abroad, and subject to draconian punishments in hideous conditions, receive such assistance from Uncle Sam's government?)
3) Ok, we can agree not to use the term 'Rooskie' here, but it is also true that no one has used any anti-homosexual slur words here.
4) There is no question that I hate drugs, and have been developing, largely because of recent experiences in my current job and home city situations, an ever increasing antipathy to users as well, especially those whose behavior affects children and spouses. And it is true, like it or not, that my own father was a violent drunk who beat the crap out of my mother and sent her to the hospital on several occasions, before she had the courage, quite rare in 1968, to depart, fearing for what he'd do to me as I aged, and even mom herself developed a pretty palpable drinking problem in her later years.
5) The Prince of Peace who is actually depicted in the Bible is not the same as the Hallmark Channel version. He actually disapproves of not only homosexuality, but a number of other things, calling them sins, that are also popular pastimes in modern society, and sends those guilty of those things, who do not repent thereof, to Hell.
6)The WNBA is essentially a publicity stunt. It is well over twenty years old, and it has *never made money*. How much more money, therefore, should the NBA owners be willing to lose, in order to pay the athletes more money?
Quote
The Prince of Peace who is actually depicted in the Bible is not the same as the Hallmark Channel version. He actually disapproves of not only homosexuality, but a number of other things, calling them sins, that are also popular pastimes in modern society, and sends those guilty of those things, who do not repent thereof, to Hell.
Probably shouldn't call him "The Prince of Peace," huh? I didn't make that up, someone else did. I guess they read a different Bible than the one you refer to.
So Jesus would have approved of sentencing a lesbian to 9 years of 16-hour days of hard labor? Wait, was that the Jesus who was condemned for hanging out with thieves and prostitutes? Must be some other guy, the one who fulminated against drugs, I guess. The Jesus I read about didn't say anything about drugs, but I guess we might as well say "If I don't like something, Jesus wouldn't have liked it either" — we make God in our image quite frequently.
I think one of those Jesuses also said something like, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "Judge not, lest ye be judged." So easy to forget those ones, or to work one's way around where it doesn't apply to us, or not this time, or not for this reason.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on December 12, 2022, 04:51:32 PM
Yes I have to agree with Marsh and Dismalist on this one. NBA players make a ton of money because their labor brings in a ton of revenue. WNBA players, not so much. I also do not agree that WNBA players are better athletes in their game than NBA players, but that's more subjective.
As far as I know, there aren't many other professional womens' basketball leagues in the world, whereas a quick google search brings up several mens' leagues in different countries. Thus, at the highest levels of competition, basketball, (like many sports), has a global talent pool for men, while mainly a national one for women, since very few countries have women playing at the professional level. Given that, it's hard to make the argument that women are "better athletes at the game". It would be almost Orwellian to claim that the
lack of competition ensures the highest level of performance. (Note that this is
without even discussing how womens' performance compares to mens'.)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 12, 2022, 08:07:42 PM
Quote
The Prince of Peace who is actually depicted in the Bible is not the same as the Hallmark Channel version. He actually disapproves of not only homosexuality, but a number of other things, calling them sins, that are also popular pastimes in modern society, and sends those guilty of those things, who do not repent thereof, to Hell.
Probably shouldn't call him "The Prince of Peace," huh? I didn't make that up, someone else did. I guess they read a different Bible than the one you refer to.
This thread is an excellent example of why salvation theology matters. K16 represents the stream of Christian thought that dominates the public narrative. I am writing not to change his mind, but to represent my own stream, progressive Christianity.
The dominant Christian narrative focuses on individual salvation. The goal is to get yourself to heaven, through some combination of faith and prayer and personal piety. I believe instead in universal salvation. I believe that we are all destined for heaven, so the goal must be something else entirely.
That "something else" is love, reconciliation, and the transformation of the world. It is not my place to judge Griner's sins. I support the effort to reunite her with the people she loves, particularly the woman she has chosen to spend her life with. If in the process we shine a light on injustice in Russia, and elsewhere around the world, so much the better.
If you are interested in Biblical support for what I believe, I would recommend
That All Shall Be Saved by David Bentley Hart, among many other resources. The Bible is a thick book that has support for three different views: universalism, infernalism (some are bound for eternal conscious torment), and annihilationism (for some, death is the end; the rest are raised to glory). The one you choose determines in part how you treat others and how you respond to complex situations like this one.
Quote from: pgher on December 13, 2022, 05:49:07 AM
This thread is an excellent example of why salvation theology matters. K16 represents the stream of Christian thought that dominates the public narrative. I am writing not to change his mind, but to represent my own stream, progressive Christianity.
The problem with the term "progressive", in politics, religion, or anything else, is that it exhibits the conceit that "progress" is absolutely identifiable, and that hindsight will never show
this generation's idea of "progress" to have been a grave error. Pretty much any historical choice that we now lament was thought by people at the time to represent
progress.
I have no idea what my grandchildren will see as "progress" when they are my age; all I can do is try and cultivate humility in myself and realize that my best ideas might be ones which I myself would regret later, and so I should always at least listen to views that disagree with me to consider if there might be some insights that I have missed.
Quote from: pgher on December 13, 2022, 05:49:07 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 12, 2022, 08:07:42 PM
Quote
The Prince of Peace who is actually depicted in the Bible is not the same as the Hallmark Channel version. He actually disapproves of not only homosexuality, but a number of other things, calling them sins, that are also popular pastimes in modern society, and sends those guilty of those things, who do not repent thereof, to Hell.
Probably shouldn't call him "The Prince of Peace," huh? I didn't make that up, someone else did. I guess they read a different Bible than the one you refer to.
This thread is an excellent example of why salvation theology matters. K16 represents the stream of Christian thought that dominates the public narrative. I am writing not to change his mind, but to represent my own stream, progressive Christianity.
The dominant Christian narrative focuses on individual salvation. The goal is to get yourself to heaven, through some combination of faith and prayer and personal piety. I believe instead in universal salvation. I believe that we are all destined for heaven, so the goal must be something else entirely.
That "something else" is love, reconciliation, and the transformation of the world. It is not my place to judge Griner's sins. I support the effort to reunite her with the people she loves, particularly the woman she has chosen to spend her life with. If in the process we shine a light on injustice in Russia, and elsewhere around the world, so much the better.
If you are interested in Biblical support for what I believe, I would recommend That All Shall Be Saved by David Bentley Hart, among many other resources. The Bible is a thick book that has support for three different views: universalism, infernalism (some are bound for eternal conscious torment), and annihilationism (for some, death is the end; the rest are raised to glory). The one you choose determines in part how you treat others and how you respond to complex situations like this one.
You're setting up a false dichotomy here. You're implying that it is not possible to believe that Hell and divine punishment are real (And let's face it, the New Testament has a lot to say about it, and that includes a number of mentions in Jesus' own teachings) and also teach the Jesus of compassion. And that is simply not so.
If universalism is true, and all are going to be okay in eternity regardless of how we live their lives or whether we reject God and God's commands, then essentially how we live our lives does not ultimately matter. If Jesus wasn't kidding about the final judgement, then what we believe and how we live matter very much, with consequences that go far beyond this immediate life. Which is why those of us to do believe in a final judgement are so insistent that people need to follow Jesus and live the way God's Word says. If they don't, the consequences will be terrible, and we have to warn them about that. It would be a terrible failure of compassion
not to warn them. Or to engage in the sort of sophistry that causes the New Testament to say exactly the opposite of what it plainly does, for the sake of making the "Christian" message more palatable.
The Christian message is not palatable or easy! It tells us that we've all messed up. We're all sinners, justly condemned by God, regardless of how good we want to think we've been. It is God's say on this that matters, and not our human desires for a world where we're free to do whatever we want and have everything turn out just right for us. Many down through the ages have professed Christian belief, and practiced some form or another of Christian religion, and been part of some sort of Christian institution. But following the teachings of Jesus--Christianity in its fullest sense--is not about professing a belief, or practicing a religion, or being loyal to an institution. It's about a revolutionary, life-changing commitment.
Cont'd (with apologies for length):
New Testament Christianity in any age is always countercultural. New Testament Christians are always going to be out of step with the broader society in some respect. In its earliest days it meant showing compassion in a world where there was very little of that. In the Middle Ages it meant pursuing peace in a society of warrior nobles who convinced themselves that even wars could be "holy." Later it meant opposing slavery when society was by and large okay with that. And today it might mean insisting that modern society's wide-open acceptance of recreational drug use and all manner of sexual practices is not right.
But it also means not writing people who disagree with us off. I go to a Baptist church that is very theologically and socially "conservative." Yet my fellow church members include former atheists, former adulterers and adulteresses, former jail birds, former drunkards and drug addicts. It includes good 'ole boys who now worship side-by-side with black people, including a racially mixed couple and their mixed children who recently joined. It includes people who who have taken needy strangers into their own homes, because that's what Jesus said to do. I know of a guy on a modest salary who saves up all year long so that each December he can drop several grand on anonymously helping 30 needy local families (There's a network of us that he trusts who recommend people for this project every year). I see among these people a level of love and compassion and acceptance such as I've never seen anywhere else--but they are not going to tell people that sex outside of a heterosexual marriage is a good thing, or that recreational drug use is no big deal.
After our nation's latest horrifying mass shooting took place in a gay nightclub, the New York Times had a steady stream of editorials demonizing evangelical Christians for not accepting LBG etc. etc. people. Said we'd as good as pulled the trigger ourselves. Then it turned out that the shooter was a trans member of the victimized community, and suddenly the crime all but disappeared from the news. What a rush to judgement! I don't recognize this caricature that dominates the editorial pages and letter columns in the loving fellowship of Christian believers that I know. As I said on the "Cancelling Dr. Seuss" thread, if we have to suffer opprobrium because we haven't pivoted on some issues the way mainstream society has, then so be it. Jesus said that those who have evil said about them falsely for his Name's sake are blessed, so I guess we're about to be blessed a lot more.
And by the way, I'm glad that Pan Griner is safely home. I hope that maybe she'll have cause to reconsider some things, now that she has a second chance.
I (a committed Christian who will not belong to any church will believes you can't go up yonder if you aren't one of them, or take communion if you hold even slightly different beliefs) do believe in Venn diagrams. Consider the set of bigots and the set of Christians (yes, there are an infinite number of sets, but let's focus on these). In the intersection sits bigots who are Christians. If you pick the verses on unrepentant homosexuals as going to Hell, but you yourself engage in any of the proscribed activities in Leviticus as "not a big deal", then you reside in the intersection of my Venn.
Note: my previous post was written prior to apl's posts. They crossed.
And one more. These are not my words, but I think they capture the essence of the alleged "inequity" of the trade.
"The nitwits who are going on about "we traded a supervillain for a basketball player" really make me roll my eyes. Whom did they think we were going to trade? Mary Poppins? Tinkerbell?
The reason we can't make a "like for like" trade for someone like Griner is because this government is not (usually) in the business of imprisoning foreign visitors on ridiculously exaggerated if not totally bogus charges. Do they think we're going to, say, frame Artemi Panerin and trade him for Griner? When all you lock up from the other side are actual criminals, that's whom you have to trade."
Quote from: apl68 on December 13, 2022, 08:16:49 AM
New Testament Christianity in any age is always countercultural. New Testament Christians are always going to be out of step with the broader society in some respect. In its earliest days it meant showing compassion in a world where there was very little of that. In the Middle Ages it meant pursuing peace in a society of warrior nobles who convinced themselves that even wars could be "holy." Later it meant opposing slavery when society was by and large okay with that. And today it might mean insisting that modern society's wide-open acceptance of recreational drug use and all manner of sexual practices is not right.
The assumption that is evident in peoples' identification of "bigotry" on the part of those who don't see things the way they do is that morality is inherent, and religion is just kind of grafted on by way of justification. (For instance, the implication is that Christians who oppose same-sex marriage are people who feel that way and
use the Bible to justify it. I think the reality for many Christians (and probably people of other faiths) is that at least some of the moral rules they must adopt wouldn't be their choice if it weren't prescribed by their religion.)
Many times individuals, (for instance police and military), must uphold rules regardless of what they think about them. Probably many, if not most, professionals also find themselves subject to requirements that they would not choose, or would modify. The only choice is to accept the rules, or leave the profession. The same applies to faith communities.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 12, 2022, 03:26:10 PM
Quote from: Istiblennius on December 12, 2022, 02:11:53 PM
A bit of a sidetrack, but I find it interesting too that no-one is discussing that many WNBA players work in other countries in large part due to the enormous misogyny inherent in American (and global) sports. They can't command the salaries the men's teams, even when, like with soccer, they far outperform the men.
Not to open a whole other can of worms, but the definition of "outperform" here is very much in question. Practially speaking, it's the audience size that determines profitability, and womens' team sports don't remotely match mens' in this regard. If they can get the paying fans, the money will follow.
You are right and I don't think it is a new can of worms. I guess I'm just thinking about how much historical structural sexism might be behind the market forces. I found it a super big bummer how much the Men's team got to *not* win the World cup compared to how much the Women's team got to win it.
And now that this thread moved on - my favorite bible story was always the one where Jesus opened up a can of whup-ass on the hypocrites at the temple. One of my favorite things about Jesus is how pissed he got at hypocrites. I suspect he'd be real displeased with many of his modern "followers".
Quote from: Istiblennius on December 13, 2022, 08:58:38 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 12, 2022, 03:26:10 PM
Quote from: Istiblennius on December 12, 2022, 02:11:53 PM
A bit of a sidetrack, but I find it interesting too that no-one is discussing that many WNBA players work in other countries in large part due to the enormous misogyny inherent in American (and global) sports. They can't command the salaries the men's teams, even when, like with soccer, they far outperform the men.
Not to open a whole other can of worms, but the definition of "outperform" here is very much in question. Practially speaking, it's the audience size that determines profitability, and womens' team sports don't remotely match mens' in this regard. If they can get the paying fans, the money will follow.
You are right and I don't think it is a new can of worms. I guess I'm just thinking about how much historical structural sexism might be behind the market forces. I found it a super big bummer how much the Men's team got to *not* win the World cup compared to how much the Women's team got to win it.
You do know that the women
rejected the contract that the men accepted, don't you? Then, when they were dissatisfied withe the contract
they negotiated, they demanded to
retroactively get the men's contract?
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 12, 2022, 07:24:05 PM
1) Viktor Bout was in no sense of the term a 'low-value prisoner'-- are you nuts? Do you have rocks in your brain? He is a scumbag of the first order, and has the blood of thousands on his hands. Every day that he will not be incarcerated is a day that he can also continue his activities, safe in Putin's protection whilst drinking vodka at a Black Sea dacha, or something like this. Now tell me how it would be that you could explain to the families of some hapless Third World victims of revolutionaries, terrorists, or the like, to whom Bout sells weapons next year, when said bad guys use said weapons to blow up innocents? 'we're sorry, but we really had to get this druggie ballplayer out', really just won't cut it.
Bout is
absolutely a scumbag of the first order. That doesn't make him a valuable prisoner, however. I may be wrong, of course, but his value to Russia seems more symbolic than anything; he's been out of the arms game long enough that I expect it'll be hard for him to get stuck in again. As for his value to the US... I would be surprised if he had any, frankly. He also had just six years remaining in his sentence..
That said, it's worth remembering that a number of scumbags of the first order--who are responsible for
hundreds of thousands of deaths--walk free in the US today, and even enjoy a fair bit of status as venerated doyens. If we care about the families of "hapless Third World victims," then Henry Kissinger, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and many others should be in shackles and awaiting trial in The Hague. I expect the explanation to those victims is the same as it always is: there
is no explanation, because their interests don't actually matter to us (even if they should).
Is there anybody here who would will kill a necromancer?
"Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together." (NIV, Deuteronomy 22:11)
"Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head--it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man." (NRSV, 1 Corinthians 11:4-7)
"And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you." Leviticus 11:7
"12 The Lord said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
6 "'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering.[a] 7 He shall offer them before the Lord to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.
"'These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 But if she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.'" Leviticus 12
I'm just curious how we would react to these Biblical dictates.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 13, 2022, 10:04:40 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on December 12, 2022, 07:24:05 PM
1) Viktor Bout was in no sense of the term a 'low-value prisoner'-- are you nuts? Do you have rocks in your brain? He is a scumbag of the first order, and has the blood of thousands on his hands. Every day that he will not be incarcerated is a day that he can also continue his activities, safe in Putin's protection whilst drinking vodka at a Black Sea dacha, or something like this. Now tell me how it would be that you could explain to the families of some hapless Third World victims of revolutionaries, terrorists, or the like, to whom Bout sells weapons next year, when said bad guys use said weapons to blow up innocents? 'we're sorry, but we really had to get this druggie ballplayer out', really just won't cut it.
Bout is absolutely a scumbag of the first order. That doesn't make him a valuable prisoner, however. I may be wrong, of course, but his value to Russia seems more symbolic than anything; he's been out of the arms game long enough that I expect it'll be hard for him to get stuck in again. As for his value to the US... I would be surprised if he had any, frankly. He also had just six years remaining in his sentence..
That said, it's worth remembering that a number of scumbags of the first order--who are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths--walk free in the US today, and even enjoy a fair bit of status as venerated doyens. If we care about the families of "hapless Third World victims," then Henry Kissinger, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and many others should be in shackles and awaiting trial in The Hague. I expect the explanation to those victims is the same as it always is: there is no explanation, because their interests don't actually matter to us (even if they should).
No doubt that if there's a hell, Bout is a solid candidate to cross the River Styx, give Cerebus a pat on the head and not come back.
That said (and I realize it's only Wikipedia) Paul Whelan is not in Bout's league, but certainly he's got his own pretty sketchy history of evil doing and generalized skullduggery. Brittany Griner may not be curing cancer and making the world a better place, but saving her from a 16 yr penal sentence for a minor infraction is a merciful thing to do.
And as I understand it, the Russians had little interest to enter any negotiation for Whelan. She may be a pot head, but Whelan's in trouble for allegedly spying on the Russians so he's a very different sort of issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Whelan_(security_director)
https://www.axios.com/2022/12/11/kirby-paul-whelan-brittney-griner-russia
You may return to arguing various faith related issues for which I have nothing to add.
[/quote]
You do know that the women rejected the contract that the men accepted, don't you? Then, when they were dissatisfied withe the contract they negotiated, they demanded to retroactively get the men's contract?
[/quote]
My understanding is that now they are actually gaining pay equity by getting a cut of the winnings from the Men's world cup too. But I'll admit I've not dug deeply into the details, mea culpa. That's what That said, I don't want to lose sight of the original point - part of the reason Griner was in Russia was because she was trying to make a living playing the sport she loves.
QuoteMy understanding is that now they are actually gaining pay equity by getting a cut of the winnings from the Men's world cup too.
Yup, the male tax! I've long thought implementing such across the board would simplify the accounting and promote transparency. :-)
Quote from: Istiblennius on December 13, 2022, 03:00:39 PM
Quote
You do know that the women rejected the contract that the men accepted, don't you? Then, when they were dissatisfied withe the contract they negotiated, they demanded to retroactively get the men's contract?
My understanding is that now they are actually gaining pay equity by getting a cut of the winnings from the Men's world cup too. But I'll admit I've not dug deeply into the details, mea culpa. That's what That said, I don't want to lose sight of the original point - part of the reason Griner was in Russia was because she was trying to make a living playing the sport she loves.
They originally negotiated higher
base pay than the men, with lower performance bonuses. (As I understand it, ironically,
both teams would have done better under the
other one's contract, given how things turned out. But the women wanted to have their cake and eat it too.) My understanding is that, going forward, there will be only one contract for both teams; they all have to agree. That should keep this from ever happening again.
(But why should
either team get a cut based on the
other team's performance? That's bizarre either way.)
A lawyer discusses the case. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLeAWuRbObQ)
Quote from: secundem_artem on December 13, 2022, 10:56:56 AM
You may return to arguing various faith related issues for which I have nothing to add.
As I mentioned, I'm not interested in arguing, since we are all unlikely to change each other's minds. I do appreciate the thoughtful response from apl68. My point was more that when we disagree on small issues, it is often because we have different world views that trace back to our fundamental understandings.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 13, 2022, 07:11:52 AM
Quote from: pgher on December 13, 2022, 05:49:07 AM
This thread is an excellent example of why salvation theology matters. K16 represents the stream of Christian thought that dominates the public narrative. I am writing not to change his mind, but to represent my own stream, progressive Christianity.
The problem with the term "progressive", in politics, religion, or anything else, is that it exhibits the conceit that "progress" is absolutely identifiable, and that hindsight will never show this generation's idea of "progress" to have been a grave error. Pretty much any historical choice that we now lament was thought by people at the time to represent progress.
I have no idea what my grandchildren will see as "progress" when they are my age; all I can do is try and cultivate humility in myself and realize that my best ideas might be ones which I myself would regret later, and so I should always at least listen to views that disagree with me to consider if there might be some insights that I have missed.
The "progressive" in progressive Christianity is more about progressive revelation than progressive politics or progress in society. I embrace the idea that God is not limited to what was understood by a small agricultural society 2600 years ago, or a small sect living under Roman rule 2000 years ago. Instead, we continue to learn more about the Divine, and in learning, we gain a better understanding of how society should work.
"progressive," no matter how it is used, is simply a buzz-word for conservatives to become agitated over these days. Some people will axiomatically react to "progressive" the same way they will react to "woke" no matter how it is used. I hear or see very few people who use either of those words...unless they are a certain type of conservative.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 13, 2022, 10:09:27 AM
Is there anybody here who would will kill a necromancer?
"Do not wear clothes of wool and linen woven together." (NIV, Deuteronomy 22:11)
"Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head--it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man." (NRSV, 1 Corinthians 11:4-7)
"And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. 8 You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you." Leviticus 11:7
"12 The Lord said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
6 "'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering.[a] 7 He shall offer them before the Lord to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.
"'These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 But if she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.'" Leviticus 12
I'm just curious how we would react to these Biblical dictates.
Ah yes: the menu approach to faith. Thank goodness a male priest will atone for the sin of the woman who gave birth.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 13, 2022, 06:12:39 PM
"progressive," no matter how it is used, is simply a buzz-word for conservatives to become agitated over these days. Some people will axiomatically react to "progressive" the same way they will react to "woke" no matter how it is used. I hear or see very few people who use either of those words...unless they are a certain type of conservative.
It would be a great thing if our society could have the best of what goes under words like "progressive," and "liberal," and "conservative." They can all be positive things. Unfortunately in recent decades we seem to be largely getting the worst of what's associated with each of these things. I don't really like to use any of these words myself any longer, due to the frequent use of them as shorthand for "things I don't like." But they do make such handy terms that they're hard not to use.
Quote from: apl68 on December 14, 2022, 12:51:09 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 13, 2022, 06:12:39 PM
"progressive," no matter how it is used, is simply a buzz-word for conservatives to become agitated over these days. Some people will axiomatically react to "progressive" the same way they will react to "woke" no matter how it is used. I hear or see very few people who use either of those words...unless they are a certain type of conservative.
It would be a great thing if our society could have the best of what goes under words like "progressive," and "liberal," and "conservative." They can all be positive things. Unfortunately in recent decades we seem to be largely getting the worst of what's associated with each of these things. I don't really like to use any of these words myself any longer, due to the frequent use of them as shorthand for "things I don't like." But they do make such handy terms that they're hard not to use.
Count me among the few who use "progressive" in a positive way, along with https://progressivechristianity.org/ (https://progressivechristianity.org/) and https://www.patheos.com/progressive-christian (https://www.patheos.com/progressive-christian).
NY Times: Griner Says She Will Be Home for the Holidays (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/12/16/world/russia-ukraine-news-griner)