Funny (political, religious) pictures
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
My 'like' aside, this line on reasoning can often run into anti-Semitism very easily. Jewish folk have a long and robust tradition of critically examining their sacred texts. For reasons I do not know, Christianity... not so much, depending on the branch.
There's a reason so many Jews are lawyers.
Really depends on the branch. I'm rarely confronted with the Born-again Baptist Evangelical Reformed Church or whatever so prefalent in some parts of the USA, which doesn't mean I haven't seen any fundamentalist Chistians, of course. Mormons or Jehova's Witnesses tend to not examine the text critically...But protestant, anglican and even a lot of catholic people these days really do accept forms of exegesis that try to live up to the idea of God is Love. The inverse still holds true for some other religions - "I'm not a racist but" all main branches of Islam tend to be very, very closed in that respect. The Quran is supposedly dictated by an Angel directly to Mohammed, and therefore isn't subject to explanations or re-interpretations as much as human, fallible texts (in their words, not mine) like te Bible.
Anyway, I personally think lots of religions sort of have the right idea in trying to get people to live together without being horrible to one another. What being horrible" is, changes through time, though, and thus such texts should be re-examined and updated to reflect the same mind set, rather than the exact same words. It demands thinking and working together and trying to do good, rather than just aping law texts and being blind and unthinking, which is easier.
Of course, Americans tend to think of their Constitution in the same way - infallible, unchanging text handed down by Übermenschen, not subject to criticism or modernization. So maybe there's just something in the water over there
Anyway, I personally think lots of religions sort of have the right idea in trying to get people to live together without being horrible to one another. What being horrible" is, changes through time, though, and thus such texts should be re-examined and updated to reflect the same mind set, rather than the exact same words. It demands thinking and working together and trying to do good, rather than just aping law texts and being blind and unthinking, which is easier.
Of course, Americans tend to think of their Constitution in the same way - infallible, unchanging text handed down by Übermenschen, not subject to criticism or modernization. So maybe there's just something in the water over there
Hey, Jew here. Well, ethnically, at least, spiritually I'm much more on the atheist side, but I can at least speak some to Jewish culture.
Jews study the Talmud because that is how we extract meaning. While it is believed that these texts were passed down as the word of "g-d" (י ה ו ה) (I'm just gonna write god from here) they were understood, interpreted and transcribed by various prophets. Moses for the Torah and if I were a better Jew I could tell you the authors of the others. Because men are fallible it is not enough then to just read the words and take them at face value, and in fact to do so would be insulting to the relationship with god, taking the mere word of man over him. And so to truly know the word of God and become closer to him these texts have to be studied, questioned, even debated, to try and understand what it meant at the time, what may have been misconstrued due to limited knowledge at the time, and how best to apply it to the modern day.
that’s a shame. We could use more gay, black representation in the House
Well, it might be.
theslot.jezebel.com
It gets weirder, see the update.
White Politician Says He's a 'Black Gay Guy' On Twitter, Causes Immediate Chaos [UPDATED]
Dean Browning of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, is many things: a retired businessman, husband, and former member of the Lehigh County Board of Commissioners. He’s also a staunch conservative and congressional hopeful who lost his primary race earlier this year. What Dean Browning is not, however...
theslot.jezebel.com
It gets weirder, see the update.
figmentPez
Staff member
Someone, somewhere, is going to take this seriously.
I can guess, but I don't want to be right.
Classic 'murica...
I don't understand how this is funny? That's been the rule for basically forever. EBT (or more traditionally called food stamps) can't be used on hot food. So you can use it at a grocery store but you can't use it in a restaurant. The only time this comes into conflict is when said grocery store also sells hot food, in which the way the law is worded does not allow that grocery store to accept ebt as payment for that food. The same holds true for pesticides, cleaners, and other 'not food' products. The register will automatically seperate the items, allow payment to be tendered with the ebt card, and then show remaining balance to be paid with cash or other payment.
Classic 'murica...
As @PatrThom said, there are ways around this. I manage a grocery store, if you want to buy bread with ebt and then ask us to toast it for you, sure, we can do that. You can also buy fish from our seafood department, which we will sell to you raw, and then offer to steam it for you as a courtesy. This is also why many gas stations sell things like microwave burritos with a microwave inside. Buy the burrito, microwave it yourself, the indigestion is a bonus.
Now, if your pic is meant to say "dumb america, why won't you let people receiving foodstamps buy hot food?" well... actually they can. I've been on ebt benefits before, and I'm happy they exist because they got me through a tough time. When you are given your card you have two different balances on it. "EBT" (which stands for electronic benefits transfer, btw) refers to what was previously called food stamps and can only be used on non-prepared food items, and this makes up the bulk of the balance. But there's usually also just a straight 'cash' balance that can be used on whatever isn't covered by ebt, including hot food.
Like, I'm all for bashing how terrible America treats their citizens. We need more support programs like this. But EBT isn't a bad program and helps millions of people.
Funny is my friend asking new waitresses if the bar accepts the Lone Star Card (food stamps in Texas.) Then watching her ask the manager. Only to see them look our table and shake their heads...
Dave
Staff member
One of my rare FTFY.
Can't tell if this is PTSD or Stockholm Syndrome...
But that was in no way, shape or form a criticism of food stamp programs. It's funny because it's so uselessly arbitrary (and, as pointed out by plenty of people, here and on the reddit thread i found it, easily circumventable).
The fact that even the thought of the possibility of it being crossed his mind seems to me to be a direct result of the exact sort of thinking that led to limiting the benefits to non-cooked foodstuff. Temporary embarrassed millionaires and all that.
The fact that even the thought of the possibility of it being crossed his mind seems to me to be a direct result of the exact sort of thinking that led to limiting the benefits to non-cooked foodstuff. Temporary embarrassed millionaires and all that.
Well, the nearest system I can compare it to is the Belgian food stamps - these aren't part of poverty aid, they're a part of wages - a compensation for the meals you eat at work or on the road.
Anyway, it's in some ways very different (it's paid by the employer and partially the employee, rather than the government), but it's also fairly similar, in that I just have a credit-card-type thing which I can use to buy food stuffs, and only food stuffs.
This type of checues, or stamps, or vignettes, or coupons, or whatever, needs to be restricted in what it can be used for. Otherwise, it's just alternative (and probably easier to forge) money.
Now, in Belgium, it's perfectly OK to buy cooked or heated food. It used to be pretty generally accepted that supermarkets would let you pay your whole cart with them as long as most of it was food - nobody cared if you bought a roll of toilet paper with it, but you wouldn't be able to buy a fridge. These days it's more strict, because, well, automated systems - the register simply says how much it'll accept.
Yes, cooked vs non-cooked seems a rather silly line to draw - it reminds me of how most bars in Belgium will happily offer you a burger or a spaghetti, but won't have fries or similar - any meal with potato in it is considered a meal and thus you need to be a restaurant (and comply with all the inherent rules), while something like a burger (or a pizza!) is a "snack" and thus, can be sold in a bistro or a bar. Clear and obvious lines are easier to draw and make your law more robust.
I mean, let's be clear: for my part they could do away with food stamps and simply give people who need it monetary assistance. Wellfare, sustenance assistance, living wages (which is what the minimums are called over here, I know the term means something else in English), whatever. but that's Dirty Red Communism according to 50% of Americans, so, eh.
Anyway, it's in some ways very different (it's paid by the employer and partially the employee, rather than the government), but it's also fairly similar, in that I just have a credit-card-type thing which I can use to buy food stuffs, and only food stuffs.
This type of checues, or stamps, or vignettes, or coupons, or whatever, needs to be restricted in what it can be used for. Otherwise, it's just alternative (and probably easier to forge) money.
Now, in Belgium, it's perfectly OK to buy cooked or heated food. It used to be pretty generally accepted that supermarkets would let you pay your whole cart with them as long as most of it was food - nobody cared if you bought a roll of toilet paper with it, but you wouldn't be able to buy a fridge. These days it's more strict, because, well, automated systems - the register simply says how much it'll accept.
Yes, cooked vs non-cooked seems a rather silly line to draw - it reminds me of how most bars in Belgium will happily offer you a burger or a spaghetti, but won't have fries or similar - any meal with potato in it is considered a meal and thus you need to be a restaurant (and comply with all the inherent rules), while something like a burger (or a pizza!) is a "snack" and thus, can be sold in a bistro or a bar. Clear and obvious lines are easier to draw and make your law more robust.
I mean, let's be clear: for my part they could do away with food stamps and simply give people who need it monetary assistance. Wellfare, sustenance assistance, living wages (which is what the minimums are called over here, I know the term means something else in English), whatever. but that's Dirty Red Communism according to 50% of Americans, so, eh.
It is an arbitrary distinction between cold and hot food, but as I pointed out the exact same program compensates for this by also providing for hot food and other necessities with a separate balance.
I understand the point you're wanting to make, I even agree with it, I just think you're using an unrelated example.
Once in a lifetime . . .
My assumption is that it was deliberately designed this way so as to prevent the recipient from subsisting solely on high-margin, low nutrient value convenience food.
--Patrick