Criminals allowed to go to Church and skip jail time.

[Greed and Death]

i find it hilarious how worked up you are; i sincerely hope you are aware i am not a christian. unless you live in alabama, it really doesnt affect you at all. again; the STATES have their own constitutions which are allowed to be AT ODDS with the federal constitution; and schools are indeed federal institutions. "no child left behind".

i now assume that you believe it is racist that i believe that illegal immigration is a crime, and should be treated as such. (jokes. but i do think that deportation, and the Arizona law are the answer.)

anyway... point is, the federal government CANNOT force states to comply with its policy; the answer is that they cut off highway funding or whatever.

anyway, what you need to understand that this does not specify "christian church". just because it doesnt have "many" Synogauges or Mosques doesnt mean anything. that just means that there arent many synogauges or mosques in alabama (shocker). thats not government selection; thats simply demographics.

affirmative action is simply racism against whites.

The 14th Amendment forces those same restrictions on the state governments.

*edit* '1' key is sticking.

[Genivaria]

http://blog.al.com/live/2011/09/bay_minette_alternative_senten.html


Does anyone else think that this is beyond messed up?
Go ACLU, fight this theocratic BS!

Nope not at all, since it appears there are "community service" options as well. I applaud programs which seek to actually help change the lives of those who may be slipping into a life of crime... Perhaps you feel it's best to continue our normal policy of giving up on the people, throwing them in cages and castigating them for the rest of their lives... surely that is in the best interest of "civil liberties" in your perverted mind.

Uh, being made to attend church isn't community service as it doesn't benefit society in anyway.

[Dinka Dinka Doo]

Probably pointed out already, but if 'Church' was replaced with 'Mosque', you can tell the people who support this would most likely go apesh*t.

[Dyakovo]

i find it hilarious how worked up you are; i sincerely hope you are aware i am not a christian. unless you live in alabama, it really doesnt affect you at all. again; the STATES have their own constitutions which are allowed to be AT ODDS with the federal constitution; and schools are indeed federal institutions. "no child left behind".

i now assume that you believe it is racist that i believe that illegal immigration is a crime, and should be treated as such. (jokes. but i do think that deportation, and the Arizona law are the answer.)

anyway... point is, the federal government CANNOT force states to comply with its policy; the answer is that they cut off highway funding or whatever.

anyway, what you need to understand that this does not specify "christian church". just because it doesnt have "many" Synogauges or Mosques doesnt mean anything. that just means that there arent many synogauges or mosques in alabama (shocker). thats not government selection; thats simply demographics.

affirmative action is simply racism against whites.

Wow... I'm impressed... It's been a while since I've seen this much fail in one post...

[Tahar Joblis]

i find it hilarious how worked up you are; i sincerely hope you are aware i am not a christian. unless you live in alabama, it really doesnt affect you at all. again; the STATES have their own constitutions which are allowed to be AT ODDS with the federal constitution;

No, they aren't.

See here and go fill yourself in on this most basic element of the United States' legal system.

anyway... point is, the federal government CANNOT force states to comply with its policy; the answer is that they cut off highway funding or whatever.

At this point, I suspect you're either a troll or grossly ignorant of the goings-on in the world.

and schools are indeed federal institutions. "no child left behind".

I'm afraid not. They may (or may not) receive federal funding, but are actually operated at the state and local levels. Your 10th grade history teacher may be an employee of the state and/or municipality, but isn't going to be a federal employee.

i now assume that you believe it is racist that i believe that illegal immigration is a crime, and should be treated as such. (jokes. but i do think that deportation, and the Arizona law are the answer.

It's not racist to think that illegal immigration is a crime, but I would be very unsurprised to discover you are one. "States' rights" is a code-word that racists tend to rally around, after all.

anyway, what you need to understand that this does not specify "christian church". just because it doesnt have "many" Synogauges or Mosques doesnt mean anything. that just means that there arent many synogauges or mosques in alabama (shocker). thats not government selection; thats simply demographics.

Go read about the supreme court cases I linked you to. You clearly do not understand the establishment clause.

affirmative action is simply racism against whites.

... you really DO want to be presumed a racist who is unwilling to directly admit to that fact, don't you? You're trying quite hard.

[Divine Unity]

Ah yes, Ratzinger, who was indeed in the Hitler Youth. Now, the part most people forget about is that Ratzinger fled from the Hitler Youth (risking his life) because he didn't want to be a part of it, and was held in an American run POW camp for a while.


And the Catholic Church has no problem with the Theory of Evolution, in fact, Catholic schools even TEACH it.
Please, if you have a issue with the RCC, at least have a legitimate issue (there are plenty you could pick).

He wasn't just in the Hitler Jugend, he was in the army. He did two tours of duty and only fled in the last few weeks or even days, like a lot of other Germans that didn't want to go down with the reich.

This doesn't make him a bad person, everybody was drafted, but it certainly doesn't make him a hero.

Some catholic schools probably teach evolution, but mine for instance didn't, and that was far from a very religious school. They simply decided we could skip the basics of modern biology. And I'm sure the way the pope handles evolution doesn't exactly contribute to people taking it as serious as they should (if they in any way like things like truth and medicines and stuff).

So yeah, I think those are pretty legitimate issues. As is the one about the condoms. He says his words are to be explained as "no sexs is even safer than sex with a condom", but they sound more like "if you're going to do it you might as well not use a condom, you're going to get aids anyway". Which is not a message you want to send, especially not since Africa has enough problems with their own authority figures and all the things they say about aids.

My Jesuit Catholic School has very in depth Biology classes, with discussion ranging from Stem Cell Research (and no, we don't condemn all forms of that either) to guess-what, Evolution. Part of the Curriculum.
I was encouraged to seek a career in Biology (even Stem-Cell Research), but am choosing to become a priest because I am more drawn to the priesthood than anything else.
I obviously have no idea what your schooling experience was like, but mine (which is very very Catholic) stresses how easily Science and Faith can go together.
The Pope's military career is pretty insignificant, and I don't think it makes him a hero, I just can't stand it when people throw out "Ratzinger is a Nazi" crap.

Finally, the Pope's message is "No sex is safer than safe sex". Though I think if you ranked out the priorities, the Church would rather you use a condom than spread AIDS or have an abortion. Just saying.


As to the overall issue of Criminals being allowed to choose an unspecified religious service instead of a minor prison sentence, the only way there would be an issue is if it was either A: Compulsory or B:Specified which religion you had to go to (Since the OP specifically says there is no specified religion, we can assume this not to be the case).

[Divine Unity]

Probably pointed out already, but if 'Church' was replaced with 'Mosque', you can tell the people who support this would most likely go apesh*t.

I don't think they should. I think if the first-offending criminal has a different faith, he should get to do his service with his faith. Regardless of which faith it is.
But he shouldn't be forced to any service he doesn't want to go to.
The fact that this is OPTIONAL is the key.

[AiliailiA]

i find it hilarious how worked up you are;

Heh, we find it hilarious how wrong you are.

i sincerely hope you are aware i am not a christian. unless you live in alabama, it really doesnt affect you at all. again; the STATES have their own constitutions which are allowed to be AT ODDS with the federal constitution

Again, you're wrong. Any citizen or group which is affected by the law can appeal it to the state Supreme Court, and that decision can then be appealed to the federal courts and ultimately to SCOTUS.

If the state law is found to violate the federal constitution, it cannot be enforced in the State. The SCOTUS may make suggestions about how the law could be constructed to make it constitutional but they're not obliged to do so. They can simply say "no".

; and schools are indeed federal institutions. "no child left behind".

... is a Federal mandate. Federal intervention in schools does not make them purely a Federal operation ... very little of their funding comes directly from Federal government for instance.

[Caffeinetopia]

Can anybody actually make an argument as to why this wouldn't be more constructive than jail time?

Why are these people facing jail time in the first place if their offences are so minor that the state feels that attending Church a couple of hours of week is sufficient punishment/correction? Why wouldn't other forms of community service be constructive? More constructive actually, since not only are they not in jail, but they'd presumably be doing something that benefits the community, not just filling pews at the local church.

Why not just make community service another option, then?

If community service worked so well, I doubt this program would even need to be introduced.

Uh, being made to attend church isn't community service as it doesn't benefit society in anyway.

It does if it rehabilitates someone who would otherwise be a criminal.

Probably pointed out already, but if 'Church' was replaced with 'Mosque', you can tell the people who support this would most likely go apesh*t.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is relevant at all to the discussion.
If the majority of people in Alabama were Muslim, it would be "Mosque." I'm not sure what your point is or why you're trying to spin the issue like this.

[Terraius]

His point isn't that the condoms spread anything. The Church says that the sex itself spreads those diseases, and we know condoms do protect against disease.
I am a devout Catholic, and nothing I've ever been taught by the church said condoms spread disease.

Actually he has said it. This is the quote from Times Online: "[AIDS] is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".

You really should have read my entire post before commenting and you would find your answer.

[Divine Unity]

Actually he has said it. This is the quote from Times Online: "[AIDS] is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".

You really should have read my entire post before commenting and you would find your answer.

As I know I've said in an earlier post, the Pope doesn't mean the Condoms themselves spread the diseases. In fact, the Pope has acknowledged they do in fact prevent the spreading of diseases (that was big news apparently a few months ago).
And, as I said regarding my own education in several Catholic schools and organizations, I have never been taught by a Catholic organization that the Church believes that Condoms spread disease. Never. 15 years in Catholic schools, nobody has ever taught that.

[Norstal]

Wow... I'm impressed... It's been a while since I've seen this much fail in one post...

"Gonna say this now, 99.999091% of what i say will be IC, or Jokes."

In that guy's sig. Yeah, I don't know anymore really.

[The Chaos Heart]

What do atheist/agnostic criminals do?

The same thing that would happen normally.

Nothing says in the policy you have to attend church. You get the choice. Nor does it say you have to believe any of the crap the church believes. Just that you have to attend.

The idea is that, by taking non-serious offenders, and exposing them to a highly moralistic culture, they will straighten out before they do something horrendous.

There is no abuse of religion going on here. That argument is absurd. It's actually seems to make a lot of sense. For first time, non-violent offenders, what's the typical penalty? Some form of community service. All this law does is allow you to choose doing work for the satte that benefits the community, or doing work for an organization that you like (or maybe dislike, again, you don't have to follow the religion), and do community service through them.

What's the problem?

[AiliailiA]

Actually he has said it. This is the quote from Times Online: "[AIDS] is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".

You really should have read my entire post before commenting and you would find your answer.

What, this?

I don't fault the entire catholic church. It's the Vatican that I have problems with. In Maine our catholic churches were a major force for allowing gay marriage, and most Catholics I've met have been decent people. It's the church leadership that are terrible, what with molesting children, claiming condoms spread AIDS, and blaming the jews for said child molestation.

I respectfully call bullshit on the two highlighted parts.

A) The Cath. Church does not support gay marriage. Any Catholic who does is not in communion with the Church and therefore what we regard as 'cafeteria catholics'. I also find it disturbing and radically relativistic to subliminally draw a conclusion that Catholics who dont support gay marriage are somehow immoral or wrong. Just because someone does not hold your skewed reality of morals does not make them false, it makes them having their own opinions.

I also take particular offense to the subliminal message that Catholics are child abusing cover up freakshows, when any person with half a brain who does research can see that the child abuse scandal was widely blown up and not, contrary to popular belief, as widespread as it has been made out to be. Of the cases that have been investigated, only a fraction resulted in payouts or settlements. Of the total abuse cases reported, a good number of them have been proven to be nothing more then greedy people wanting a quick payout. Of the total abuse cases, 80% of them occurred before the 1970-80's period.

B) The church does not officially hold the stance that condoms help spread AIDS.

What Bendict was getting at, was that by claiming condoms are the only way for people to prevent spreading STD's, your going to end up causing more harm then good. Condoms are not 100% effective, and the idea about it being that condoms do promote fornication because ignorant people (Which Africa has alot of given its status as a 3rd world continent and lack of any real education) will think that they are 100% effective and dont have to worry about it.

Until it breaks or turns out to be faulty and then the STV is spread.

This was the logic behind it. Not everyone in the world has common sense, you severely misunderestimate the ignorance of people living in Africa. Its a dirt poor, famine stricken god-forsaken hellhole. Their education is nearly nonexistent and even if there was, its shoddy and ineffective. So to assume that the Pope was being rash when he made that deduction, is entirely false and unfounded, the product of looking from the outside in.

Not everyone in the world has a sense of reason and logic to find it necessary to keep in mind that condoms are not 100% effective, let alone apply this conclusion to mass-information to let others know.

And also, looking at 90% of NationStates in general, I would only hope that one could assume that the Africans and other peoples living in such hellish conditions are not alone, as we have our share of uneducated militant relativists here as well living in the 1st world, the US and Europe, so to speak.

If Benedict's argument is that teaching ONLY safe sex is dangerous, then clearly to teach ONLY abstinence is dangerous too.

I don't mind if schools "teach" abstinence, though I suspect it's about as effective as "teaching" Say No To Drugs. What I really object to is when the teaching of abstinence is Abstinence Only.

So how do Catholic schools teach about sex in Africa? Is it Abstinence Only, or Abstinence and Safe Sex?

And no, don't talk about how your school taught you. Not unless your school was in Africa.

[AiliailiA]

There is no abuse of religion going on here. That argument is absurd. It's actually seems to make a lot of sense. For first time, non-violent offenders, what's the typical penalty? Some form of community service. All this law does is allow you to choose doing work for the satte that benefits the community, or doing work for an organization that you like (or maybe dislike, again, you don't have to follow the religion), and do community service through them.

Attending church is not "doing work for" the church.

[Divine Unity]

You really should have read my entire post before commenting and you would find your answer.

What, this?

I respectfully call bullshit on the two highlighted parts.

A) The Cath. Church does not support gay marriage. Any Catholic who does is not in communion with the Church and therefore what we regard as 'cafeteria catholics'. I also find it disturbing and radically relativistic to subliminally draw a conclusion that Catholics who dont support gay marriage are somehow immoral or wrong. Just because someone does not hold your skewed reality of morals does not make them false, it makes them having their own opinions.

I also take particular offense to the subliminal message that Catholics are child abusing cover up freakshows, when any person with half a brain who does research can see that the child abuse scandal was widely blown up and not, contrary to popular belief, as widespread as it has been made out to be. Of the cases that have been investigated, only a fraction resulted in payouts or settlements. Of the total abuse cases reported, a good number of them have been proven to be nothing more then greedy people wanting a quick payout. Of the total abuse cases, 80% of them occurred before the 1970-80's period.

B) The church does not officially hold the stance that condoms help spread AIDS.

What Bendict was getting at, was that by claiming condoms are the only way for people to prevent spreading STD's, your going to end up causing more harm then good. Condoms are not 100% effective, and the idea about it being that condoms do promote fornication because ignorant people (Which Africa has alot of given its status as a 3rd world continent and lack of any real education) will think that they are 100% effective and dont have to worry about it.

Until it breaks or turns out to be faulty and then the STV is spread.

This was the logic behind it. Not everyone in the world has common sense, you severely misunderestimate the ignorance of people living in Africa. Its a dirt poor, famine stricken god-forsaken hellhole. Their education is nearly nonexistent and even if there was, its shoddy and ineffective. So to assume that the Pope was being rash when he made that deduction, is entirely false and unfounded, the product of looking from the outside in.

Not everyone in the world has a sense of reason and logic to find it necessary to keep in mind that condoms are not 100% effective, let alone apply this conclusion to mass-information to let others know.

And also, looking at 90% of NationStates in general, I would only hope that one could assume that the Africans and other peoples living in such hellish conditions are not alone, as we have our share of uneducated militant relativists here as well living in the 1st world, the US and Europe, so to speak.

If Benedict's argument is that teaching ONLY safe sex is dangerous, then clearly to teach ONLY abstinence is dangerous too.

I don't mind if schools "teach" abstinence, though I suspect it's about as effective as "teaching" Say No To Drugs. What I really object to is when the teaching of abstinence is Abstinence Only.

So how do Catholic schools teach about sex in Africa? Is it Abstinence Only, or Abstinence and Safe Sex?

And no, don't talk about how your school taught you. Not unless your school was in Africa.

Can't speak for Africa. But it seems illogical that the same institution with the same goals run by the same people would teach me one thing, and people in Africa something different.

And I appreciate productive criticism of the Church. That's how we make it better.

[The Chaos Heart]

There is no abuse of religion going on here. That argument is absurd. It's actually seems to make a lot of sense. For first time, non-violent offenders, what's the typical penalty? Some form of community service. All this law does is allow you to choose doing work for the satte that benefits the community, or doing work for an organization that you like (or maybe dislike, again, you don't have to follow the religion), and do community service through them.

Attending church is not "doing work for" the church.

they would also have to answer some questions about the services

Sorry, when I read that line, I forgot "service" is also a term for church ministry, not just...well service.

My bad. That changes things.

[Terraius]

You really should have read my entire post before commenting and you would find your answer.

What, this?

I respectfully call bullshit on the two highlighted parts.

A) The Cath. Church does not support gay marriage. Any Catholic who does is not in communion with the Church and therefore what we regard as 'cafeteria catholics'. I also find it disturbing and radically relativistic to subliminally draw a conclusion that Catholics who dont support gay marriage are somehow immoral or wrong. Just because someone does not hold your skewed reality of morals does not make them false, it makes them having their own opinions.

I also take particular offense to the subliminal message that Catholics are child abusing cover up freakshows, when any person with half a brain who does research can see that the child abuse scandal was widely blown up and not, contrary to popular belief, as widespread as it has been made out to be. Of the cases that have been investigated, only a fraction resulted in payouts or settlements. Of the total abuse cases reported, a good number of them have been proven to be nothing more then greedy people wanting a quick payout. Of the total abuse cases, 80% of them occurred before the 1970-80's period.

B) The church does not officially hold the stance that condoms help spread AIDS.

What Bendict was getting at, was that by claiming condoms are the only way for people to prevent spreading STD's, your going to end up causing more harm then good. Condoms are not 100% effective, and the idea about it being that condoms do promote fornication because ignorant people (Which Africa has alot of given its status as a 3rd world continent and lack of any real education) will think that they are 100% effective and dont have to worry about it.

Until it breaks or turns out to be faulty and then the STV is spread.

This was the logic behind it. Not everyone in the world has common sense, you severely misunderestimate the ignorance of people living in Africa. Its a dirt poor, famine stricken god-forsaken hellhole. Their education is nearly nonexistent and even if there was, its shoddy and ineffective. So to assume that the Pope was being rash when he made that deduction, is entirely false and unfounded, the product of looking from the outside in.

Not everyone in the world has a sense of reason and logic to find it necessary to keep in mind that condoms are not 100% effective, let alone apply this conclusion to mass-information to let others know.

And also, looking at 90% of NationStates in general, I would only hope that one could assume that the Africans and other peoples living in such hellish conditions are not alone, as we have our share of uneducated militant relativists here as well living in the 1st world, the US and Europe, so to speak.

If Benedict's argument is that teaching ONLY safe sex is dangerous, then clearly to teach ONLY abstinence is dangerous too.

I don't mind if schools "teach" abstinence, though I suspect it's about as effective as "teaching" Say No To Drugs. What I really object to is when the teaching of abstinence is Abstinence Only.

So how do Catholic schools teach about sex in Africa? Is it Abstinence Only, or Abstinence and Safe Sex?

And no, don't talk about how your school taught you. Not unless your school was in Africa.

Ive actually been on mission trips with my dad to Latin America and Africa. Im well aware of the education there (Or, lack there of, 90% of the places had no schools, and we were the teachers.)

Your argument is really deconstructive. To put it in perspective:

'Dont do drugs.' opposed to
'Go ahead and do drugs but only smoke X / only smoke X in Y fashion to be safe'

'Dont Steal' opposed to
'Dont get caught'

The idea of abstinence is a simple one. If you want to be 100% sure you dont want to get an STD or pregnant, then dont have sex. If you are willing to take the risk with condoms, do so at your own risk.

If you can produce a method that is 100% effective at not riskin STD transfer or pregnancy outside of not having sex, then by all means present it.

If you dont want lung cancer, dont smoke.

If you dont want to risk X consequence, dont do Y activity.

This is not a hard concept to grasp.

The Pope and the Church are not opposed to the idea of condoms themselves. Infact, the Pope did recognize that condoms help prevent, not 100%, but a good percent, of risks.

What the Church opposes is the idea behind condoms, that if they are the only option given to people, voiding any other concepts such as abstinence, that the uneducated and misinformed will be lead to believe that they are 100% effective or that the risks are slim to none, and therefore promote rampant sex. If you think I am wrong, then you can easily look up the statistics and see that the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies and STD transfers occurs in the part of our population that is naturally inclined to be uneducated and misinformed - Teenagers and Young Adults.

[Terraius]

What, this?



If Benedict's argument is that teaching ONLY safe sex is dangerous, then clearly to teach ONLY abstinence is dangerous too.

I don't mind if schools "teach" abstinence, though I suspect it's about as effective as "teaching" Say No To Drugs. What I really object to is when the teaching of abstinence is Abstinence Only.

So how do Catholic schools teach about sex in Africa? Is it Abstinence Only, or Abstinence and Safe Sex?

And no, don't talk about how your school taught you. Not unless your school was in Africa.

Can't speak for Africa. But it seems illogical that the same institution with the same goals run by the same people would teach me one thing, and people in Africa something different.

And I appreciate productive criticism of the Church. That's how we make it better.

With all due respect, Ailiailia's arguments are hardly productive rather then simply angered, skewed and biased, not to mention, not exactly accurate.

[AiliailiA]

What, this?



If Benedict's argument is that teaching ONLY safe sex is dangerous, then clearly to teach ONLY abstinence is dangerous too.

I don't mind if schools "teach" abstinence, though I suspect it's about as effective as "teaching" Say No To Drugs. What I really object to is when the teaching of abstinence is Abstinence Only.

So how do Catholic schools teach about sex in Africa? Is it Abstinence Only, or Abstinence and Safe Sex?

And no, don't talk about how your school taught you. Not unless your school was in Africa.

Can't speak for Africa. But it seems illogical that the same institution with the same goals run by the same people would teach me one thing, and people in Africa something different.

Not that illogical. They will teach whatever the national curriculum requires them to teach, and that varies between countries. If it's something they would prefer not to teach about (like perhaps contraception) then they won't in countries that don't require it.

[Kazomal]

Wow... I'm impressed... It's been a while since I've seen this much fail in one post...

"Gonna say this now, 99.999091% of what i say will be IC, or Jokes."

In that guy's sig. Yeah, I don't know anymore really.

Right. Obvious troll is obvious.

Every part of what he said was, again, wrong.

Obvious troll is obvious.

[AiliailiA]

Can't speak for Africa. But it seems illogical that the same institution with the same goals run by the same people would teach me one thing, and people in Africa something different.

And I appreciate productive criticism of the Church. That's how we make it better.

With all due respect, Ailiailia's arguments are hardly productive rather then simply angered, skewed and biased, not to mention, not exactly accurate.

Jeeze, I was trying to be polite and respectful by spoilering the parts of your post where you extend the fact of poor education in Africa to Africans being stupid and unable to make judgements in their own interests. And the part where you said that 90% of NSG were just like them.

I picked out the part from a post on page 5 which you didn't bother to link to when you butted into the conversation between Divine Unity and United States of Cascadia, as though of course anyone in the thread must know which post you mean. Because it's all about you isn't it?

[Greed and Death]

i find it hilarious how worked up you are; i sincerely hope you are aware i am not a christian. unless you live in alabama, it really doesnt affect you at all. again; the STATES have their own constitutions which are allowed to be AT ODDS with the federal constitution;

No, they aren't.

See here and go fill yourself in on this most basic element of the United States' legal system.

Your pointing to the wrong source. Prior the 14th amendment, and really prior Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) the bill of rights was largely not held to apply to the states.

[Tahar Joblis]

What Bendict was getting at, was that by claiming condoms are the only way for people to prevent spreading STD's, your going to end up causing more harm then good. Condoms are not 100% effective, and the idea about it being that condoms do promote fornication because ignorant people (Which Africa has alot of given its status as a 3rd world continent and lack of any real education) will think that they are 100% effective and dont have to worry about it.

And empirical evidence proves him wrong.

Comprehensive sex education has been compared with abstinence-only indoctrination time and time again, and the numbers say that the abstinence-only campaigns have the net result of increasing STD rates.

People will keep having sex. The way to reduce AIDS transmission rates is to teach people about condoms and promote using condoms.

[Terraius]

With all due respect, Ailiailia's arguments are hardly productive rather then simply angered, skewed and biased, not to mention, not exactly accurate.

Jeeze, I was trying to be polite and respectful by spoilering the parts of your post where you extend the fact of poor education in Africa to Africans being stupid and unable to make judgements in their own interests. And the part where you said that 90% of NSG were just like them.

I picked out the part from a post on page 5 which you didn't bother to link to when you butted into the conversation between Divine Unity and United States of Cascadia, as though of course anyone in the thread must know which post you mean. Because it's all about you isn't it?

Im sorry you dont want to accept the fact that 3rd world countries dont have as adequate an education system as the US does and thus leads to ignorant people.

Note how I used the word ignorant, which means lack of knowledge, as opposed to stupid, which in contrast means a lack of common sense.

And of course, Yes, it is all about me, Im dieing for the attention of a bunch of internet philosophers, what can I say.