411–420 of 438 posts
Using the argument form of this article you could make any number of outrageously nonsensical claims. The form is basically X does Y more than Z, where X occurs vastly more than Z in some population. Examples: 1. white caucasians commit more crime in the Canada than all other ethnic groups combined! 2. In Sweden the common cold is more lethal than HIV! In my opinion article exemplifies the antithesis of a decent argu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The challenge with that is that many churches, especially the "megachurches", actively resist revealing that information. A survey revealed a breakdown of 'senior pastor' versus other personnel relative salaries, without divulging any specifics: http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/september/ho... But it did say that most large churches spend "slightly less than half their givings on staffing costs". "The…
> So I -do- place some skepticism on the idea of blanketing 'religious giving' as 'charitable contribution'. So, you cherry picked the megachurches without showing how much of the Church going population they make up. I could throw in an equal list[1] of all the charities (some well known) that have horrible giving records . Also, yes, staffing costs are big at churches because these people do actual pastoral work. O…
Me: "much money is used for publicity purposes"
You: "you need to prove that"
Me: here's some links talking about both megachurches AND a cross section of churches and how much they spend on publicity.
You: "well of course they have to spread the word, that's no different to secular charities!"
Charity Navigator is awesome. I was 'glad' to see that the Wounded Warrior Project finally ousted their leadership, who were happier spending money on parties to pat themselves on the back than they were to help soldiers.
Here's the thing. The initial discussion is about charity giving as it related to party affiliation, and how the conservative side was "ahead", only if you factored in religious giving.
Yes, there are many, many valid religious charities (and by this I mean organizations, as well as that component of church giving that factors into benevolence).
But by studies performed by religious organizations themselves (who if anything are likely to skew the numbers more positively), across the board, "Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget", and an additional 5% goes to "church run programs" (be it after school care, social or group activities).
If a secular charity - and lets go back to Charity Navigator here - Top Ten Inefficient Fundraisers (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&...) we see some of the worst charities spending 15% of their donations on "program expenses" (i.e. doing what they are being given money to do).
I'm not familiar with the monitoring of 501(c)3 groups, but I suspect if charities were to regularly spend only one per cent of their givings on what they got to enjoy tax exemption to do, they'd likely have such a status revoked.
And, if you factor in this average percentage (even the six per cent combined, which is generous, as as much fun as social and youth activities are, they're not necessarily serving a critical need), and start to question 'how much money is being spent on 'spreading the word', patting themselves on the back, competitions in Texas to see who can built the world's biggest cross just down the road from where the world's previously biggest cross was built at costs of millions, there comes more and more skepticism of just how highly you can value "giving to your church" on the scale of charitable contributions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So I -do- place some skepticism on the idea of blanketing 'religious giving' as 'charitable contribution'. So, you cherry picked the megachurches without showing how much of the Church going population they make up. I could throw in an equal list[1] of all the charities (some well known) that have horrible giving records . Also, yes, staffing costs are big at churches because these people do actual pastoral work. O…
I can't help but feel like you're engaging in goalpost moving. Me: "much money is used for publicity purposes" You: "you need to prove that" Me: here's some links talking about both megachurches AND a cross section of churches and how much they spend on publicity. You: "well of course they have to spread the word, that's no different to secular charities!" Charity Navigator is awesome. I was 'glad' to see that the Wo…
> I'm not familiar with the monitoring of 501(c)3 groups, but I suspect if charities were to regularly spend only one per cent of their givings on what they got to enjoy tax exemption to do, they'd likely have such a status revoked.
Well, no. You can scam 9/11 money and get away with it (e.g. Red Cross & United Way).
Also, all that giving on secular charities part does go to someones salaries and administration and supplies and stipends. Giving to A pays for group B. The grants we've received went to salaries and administration but are listed as giving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be falling prey to Simpsons's Paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox The chart is very clearly downward, with a couple of upward slopes in the middle. If you cherry pick the evidence like that crimeresearch.org link does, you'll get the upward slope. If you look at the data as a whole, you get the long term downward trend. This is pretty much the definition of Simpson's Paradox. The down…
Cherry picking isn't the same thing as Simpson's paradox. As for cherry picking: right back atcha. But even that doesn't work for the Ireland, Jamaica, DC, and Chicago graphs.
As for Ireland and Jamaica, the increase in homicides are very explainable given the Troubles and rise of Carribean drug trafficking in the 70s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't recall saying it did.
Perhaps I worded it poorly.. why have guns if you fear the government? How does being a gun nut and fearing the government relate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree he is a sales man and it can be off putting to a lot of people. On the other hand comparing him to the qualities of Hitler is a extreme misrepresentation and it is just godwin's law.
you're the first to pull the hitler card in this thread. though you have a point, his campain does resemble Hitler's. sure, it's jews in one and brown people in the other... other than that? the greatest nation on earth under siege! let's make this country great again! they will pay for what they've done to us!
These are the qualities of hitler, I pull it to illustrate how ridiculous and lazy your arguments are.
You get offended by someone saying people coming over the boarder illegally are criminals, yet it is ok compare Trump to someone that called for the killings of tens of millions of people most not jews or brown, but white[1]. I don't see the media yelling for apologies on that one...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
in simpleton speak.. UK killed a citizen with a drone.... without trial... this means they will use a tool to kill citizens without trial... as have many many other govts in history.... simple economics of scale... your govt cannot afford to drone kill everyone and everyone can afford a rifle / pistol... it will be bloody but an armed citizenry will always win... assuming they care enough to fight
it will be bloody but an armed citizenry will always win... Who won in Northern Ireland? One of the things that annoys me about this stupid phoney insurgency that's always brought up as a pro-gun argument is that we actually had one in the UK and it was awful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Calls most Mexicans rapists ands stands by it (slanted framing) Because they are illegals the stats are difficult to prove or disprove. -An estimated 25,000 of these undocumented immigrants serving sentences for homicide -A cumulative total of 2.89 million offenses committed by these undocumented immigrants between 2003 and 2009 (although half a million of these were for immigration-related offenses) -Among those of…
Nationwide, illegals are Five time Less likely to be in prison than native born US citizens. Also, immigration violations, not violent acts account for most immigrants in federal prison. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/anecdotes-eviden...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps I worded it poorly.. why have guns if you fear the government? How does being a gun nut and fearing the government relate?
An armed populace is a deterrent to the worst abuses. Even with the modern military. They can't drone strike everyone and can't carpet bomb every town. Guerrilla wars are bloody and hard to win, as Vietnam and Iraq showed.
Also isn't Iraq an counter example to your point (as mentioned in a parent post [1])? Since it did have a fairly high gun ownership rate and yet it had an oppressive government. Or did it simply not yet reach the necessary worst abuses level yet? Or was the gun ownership rate not high enough?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11289520 [2] heard some funny stories from bomb squad people, about such encounters.. really have to wonder what these people are thinking
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not defending trump, I just don't see a place for emotional "-ist" words based on very selective framing of someones speech. we need to talk about illegal immigration and criminal activity. We need to talk about Black on Black violence not just police violence. Why should he know David Duke is? and he disavowed 15 times. I love the push back, that is what america is about having debates about important issues, no…
>Why should he know David Duke is? Donald Trump knows perfectly well who David Duke is and what he stands for[0]. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/...
fair enough, good debate on if trump knew him, but since that first interview where he claimed to have a bad ear piece he had disavowed him many times since. I know it gets a lot of air time because the media gets to say "Trump" and "kkk" in the same sentence but this is just an association fallacy and not even an evidence for anyones argument.