The narrative is that you're a s***ty person for tossing out women and children because some women might be having sex with some men at the shelter.

 

eta: good lesson in why relying on private charity instead of robust, nondiscriminatory public programs is not always the best idea, though!

Edited December 16, 201510 yr by StrangeSox

The narrative is that you're a s***ty person for tossing out women and children because some women might be having sex with some men at the shelter.

 

eta: good lesson in why relying on private charity instead of robust, nondiscriminatory public programs is not always the best idea, though!

 

Because when the government runs things, it will be free of all corruption and discriminatory practices!!!

 

What a joke.

The narrative is that you're a s***ty person for tossing out women and children because some women might be having sex with some men at the shelter.

 

eta: good lesson in why relying on private charity instead of robust, nondiscriminatory public programs is not always the best idea, though!

I dont agree with what this shelter did but at the same time charity is charity, and if you took the time to read absolutely anything else about the situation than "RawStory" (lol) Youd see they didnt toss out women and children, they sent them to a different shelter. Granted its weird and not everyone is going to agree with why they did it but you have to see the irony of some SJW crying about a charities policy despite the fact that the charity has likely helped more people in one day than they have in their entire lives.

Because when the government runs things, it will be free of all corruption and discriminatory practices!!!

 

What a joke.

Weird, my posts don't have anything about "corruption" when I see them on my screen. Maybe I should get my monitor checked?

 

As for discrimination in government programs, yes, it happens, but legally it shouldn't be happening and generally speaking, the programs are structured in non-discriminatory ways.

 

There are, on the other hand, a lot of private groups that are explicitly discriminatory.

I dont agree with what this shelter did but at the same time charity is charity, and if you took the time to read absolutely anything else about the situation than "RawStory" (lol) Youd see they didnt toss out women and children, they sent them to a different shelter. Granted its weird and not everyone is going to agree with why they did it but you have to see the irony of some SJW crying about a charities policy despite the fact that the charity has likely helped more people in one day than they have in their entire lives.

 

s***ty, discriminatory charity is still charity, but it sucks that it's s***ty and there's nothing wrong with calling it out for being s***ty. There are non-s***ty charities that don't make stupid moves like this one did for s***ty reasons, and those are the charities that should be supported.

 

eta sending them to a different shelter 30 minutes away is still tossing them out

Edited December 16, 201510 yr by StrangeSox

Weird, my posts don't have anything about "corruption" when I see them on my screen. Maybe I should get my monitor checked?

 

As for discrimination in government programs, yes, it happens, but legally it shouldn't be happening and generally speaking, the programs are structured in non-discriminatory ways.

 

There are, on the other hand, a lot of private groups that are explicitly discriminatory.

 

When one uses the word "robust" to describe a government program, they're often including "with strict oversight as to avoid corruption" as part of the "robustness" of that program.

 

So nice try on the feigned ignorance. "Derp, I don't see that word on my monitor...derp." Go play dumb with someone else...or stop using the word robust.

When one uses the word "robust" to describe a government program, they're often including "with strict oversight as to avoid corruption" as part of the "robustness" of that program.

 

So nice try on the feigned ignorance. "Derp, I don't see that word on my monitor...derp." Go play dumb with someone else...or stop using the word robust.

Robust as in wide-ranging and encompassing everyone in need; strongly funded, resourced and staffed. I don't know why you think robust implies free from corruption (though, again, plenty of private charities have corruption problems).

 

There's no feigned ignorance there, there's just you insisting that your idiosyncratic definition is the right one and is obviously how someone else must have used the word.

s***ty, discriminatory charity is still charity, but it sucks that it's s***ty and there's nothing wrong with calling it out for being s***ty. There are non-s***ty charities that don't make stupid moves like this one did for s***ty reasons, and those are the charities that should be supported.

 

eta sending them to a different shelter 30 minutes away is still tossing them out

s***ty charity > No charity is the point youre missing. Who is talking about supporting this charity anyway? Should the shelter close down and should they throw out everyone else now? Or maybe, just maybe the fact that theyre helping some homeless people (no matter how ridiculous the circumstances are) better than not helping anyone?

Robust as in wide-ranging and encompassing everyone in need; strongly funded, resourced and staffed. I don't know why you think robust implies free from corruption (though, again, plenty of private charities have corruption problems).

 

There's no feigned ignorance there, there's just you insisting that your idiosyncratic definition is the right one and is obviously how someone else must have used the word.

 

I never said private charities are free of corruption.

 

I don't think robust implies that a given program would be free of corruption, but it does imply oversight to prevent it, or at the very least, curtail it.

 

I doubt there is a single instance in the history of government where you won't find corruption when oversight doesn't exist.

s***ty charity > No charity is the point youre missing. Who is talking about supporting this charity anyway? Should the shelter close down and should they throw out everyone else now? Or maybe, just maybe the fact that theyre helping some homeless people (no matter how ridiculous the circumstances are) better than not helping anyone?

 

I'm not missing that point. I was using the story to illustrate a different point (religious charities sometimes do s***ty things for religious reasons), so it's not particularly relevant.

 

Ideally, the shelter just doesn't do the dumb thing it did. There's no need for them to close down, but there was no need to ship women and children out and bar any more from coming, either. If their funding comes from donations, I'd hope people send their money to shelters that wouldn't do the same things they did, but again not really central to the point.

I never said private charities are free of corruption.

 

I don't think robust implies that a given program would be free of corruption, but it does imply oversight to prevent it, or at the very least, curtail it.

 

I doubt there is a single instance in the history of government where you won't find corruption when oversight doesn't exist.

And I never said public programs would be 100% free of corruption and in fact never mentioned corruption, so I still don't know what set you off in the first place.

 

Any government program would have some level of fraud/corruption (so would any large private program, it's the nature of large programs!) and would also have oversight mechanisms in place. I never said or implied otherwise.

I'm not missing that point. I was using the story to illustrate a different point (religious charities sometimes do s***ty things for religious reasons), so it's not particularly relevant.

 

Ideally, the shelter just doesn't do the dumb thing it did. There's no need for them to close down, but there was no need to ship women and children out and bar any more from coming, either. If their funding comes from donations, I'd hope people send their money to shelters that wouldn't do the same things they did, but again not really central to the point.

Re bolded, info is from jenks' link.

Woodward said he would like to be able to accept women in the shelter in the future. However, he said he would need to renovate the facility.

 

 

 

 

And I never said public programs would be 100% free of corruption and in fact never mentioned corruption, so I still don't know what set you off in the first place.

 

Any government program would have some level of fraud/corruption (so would any large private program, it's the nature of large programs!) and would also have oversight mechanisms in place. I never said or implied otherwise.

 

So, in the end, neither way is perfect.

 

That was my point.

Woodward is not currently accepting women or children into the shelter i.e. he has barred any more from coming in, like I said. Because some men and women had sex (which jenks characterized as a "whore house" for some reason? did I miss the alleged prostitution angle?)

I suppose, but it sounds like an actual sex problem more than a temptation problem. The problem is more easily solved by getting rid of one sex. I agree it's pretty s***ty to throw out women, but it's charity, can't really b**** about getting something for nothing.

 

edit: and it sounds like from this story it was more about numbers than sex:

 

 

 

Seems reasonable to me.

 

Pretty tough to get to the shelter that's 30 minutes away if you don't have transportation. Because these women and children are homeless, it's reasonable to assume that at the very least some lack sufficient transportation. Because this is a rural area, it's reasonable to infer that public transportation doesn't service the area.

 

This guy certainly doesn't have to provide shelter to the homeless, and the charity provides an objective benefit (ie, some homeless sheltered is better than no homeless sheltered), but it does illustrate the limitations of the social safety net relying on the whims of religious dogma.

Woodward is not currently accepting women or children into the shelter i.e. he has barred any more from coming in, like I said. Because some men and women had sex (which jenks characterized as a "whore house" for some reason? did I miss the alleged prostitution angle?)

What does this even mean lol? I was just pointing out that they said they were planning on taking women and children in the future after renovations.

Pretty tough to get to the shelter that's 30 minutes away if you don't have transportation. Because these women and children are homeless, it's reasonable to assume that at the very least some lack sufficient transportation. Because this is a rural area, it's reasonable to infer that public transportation doesn't service the area.

 

This guy certainly doesn't have to provide shelter to the homeless, and the charity provides an objective benefit (ie, some homeless sheltered is better than no homeless sheltered), but it does illustrate the limitations of the social safety net relying on the whims of religious dogma.

This was my (perhaps poorly communicated) point, not that all private religious or secular (see Red Cross post in the Dem thread) charity is bad and should be supplanted by government programs.

What does this even mean lol? I was just pointing out that they said they were planning on taking women and children in the future after renovations.

He said that he'd "like to be able" to accept women in the future, but that he'd need to renovate. There's nothing concrete about him ever actually accepting women in the future.

He said that he'd "like to be able" to accept women in the future, but that he'd need to renovate. There's nothing concrete about him ever actually accepting women in the future.

Of all the things being discussed in this thread the thing you choose to nitpick is that theres no concrete proof he might want to accept women in the future?

You're the one who quoted and bolded my post on the first place. I was responding to that.

You're the one who quoted and bolded my post on the first place. I was responding to that.

Ya I was just pointing out to you that the other article mentioned something that contradicted something you posted. You are right though, I guess I dont have any CONCRETE evidence that this shelter has any plans to EVER accept women or children! For all we know they might never even do any renovations! Until I see 3 handwritten quotes from contractors for the pertinent upgrades Im gonna boycott this charity.

Ya I was just pointing out to you that the other article mentioned something that contradicted something you posted. You are right though, I guess I dont have any CONCRETE evidence that this shelter has any plans to EVER accept women or children! For all we know they might never even do any renovations! Until I see 3 handwritten quotes from contractors for the pertinent upgrades Im gonna boycott this charity.

Yeah see that's the problem, what you quoted doesn't contradict what I said even if you are assuming that they have some renovations planned and funded in order to be able to accept women (even though renovations after not actually needed as evidenced by the fact that women were there until recently!). "I'd like to be able to buy a Ferrari, but I'd need $300k" doesn't mean I actually have a plan or the funding to get one.

 

What I said is that they aren't accepting women or children, which they aren't. That they would after hypothetical renovations doesn't make that statement wrong.

Edited December 17, 201510 yr by StrangeSox

I didn't read the story but is there any more to it than maybe the people in charge realizing something wasn't working as currently constructed? Maybe the actions serve the greater good of the place at this time, to help the best way they can.

Yeah see that's the problem, what you quoted doesn't contradict what I said even if you are assuming that they have some renovations planned and funded in order to be able to accept women (even though renovations after not actually needed as evidenced by the fact that women were there until recently!). "I'd like to be able to buy a Ferrari, but I'd need $300k" doesn't mean I actually have a plan or the funding to get one.

 

What I said is that they aren't accepting women or children, which they aren't. That they would after hypothetical renovations doesn't make that statement wrong.

Neither of us has any clue what their future intentions are. Sure you seem to think you do, but you dont. I was pointing out that they mentioned they hoped to accept women and children again in the future after renovations. Thats literally it. Can I prove that this is a sincere comment? (Since this is apparently the most important issue being discussed here) No I guess I cant. Can you prove they didnt mean it? Well you sure as hell appear to think you can, but no you cant.

He did not actually say that he hoped to accept women or that any renovations are planned or were even in the conceptual phase. I don't need to prove anything because my statement, that women and children are barred from this shelter, is true regardless of hypothetical future renovations. I did not say "banned forever" but it appears people in this thread really want to argue against things I didn't say for some reason.