Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Danzo

  1. So you are saying there really is no definition of "Hispanic/Latino" except what exists in peoples minds. Somehow you think that something with no biological, cultural or behavioral definition can help you with a medical problem. You can't see the problem with that? One of the biggest problems with racism is that people never see it in themselves. They think that as long as they are nice to people of different races they can't be racists. What they don't realize is that seeing people as different races is the problem. Race doesn't really exist except in the mind.
  2. Just because the news is racist (and wrong) doesn't make it right. Some "Latino (whatever that means)s live in multi generation families. Some non "Latino's" do as well. Many "Latino's" live by themselves. Some just live with the kids (like my "latino" family).
  3. Death by pneumonia. I have been around people who are dying or who have died of many different things, left sided heart failure is similar, but takes more time, on guy I was visiting took several weeks after being taken off of life support. It is rarely pleasant. Dying is a risk we take for living. Perhaps some people have a different point of view about living vs dying. What is worse, dying by pneumonia surrounded by loved ones after a long life or being found dead in your house after spending months or years alone? By isolating people we may be prolonging life, but are the
  4. Dividing people into groups like "Hispanic" "Black" "Pacific Islanders", etc is the very definition of racism. What is "Hispanic/latino" anyway? Someone from Spain? someone from Brasil? Native american who speaks Spanish? Someone from the Dominican republic, Hispanic or African? Its just an excuse to put people in a box to judge them, or classify them without getting to know them. Once we have properly put them into a category we can then be concerned about them and help them out (as a category, not as individuals)
  5. What I don't get is everyone's judgment on what risks are acceptable and what risks are not acceptable. We should treat people like adults and not turn people into infants that need to be told what to do for their own good. Being an "essential worker" I have been seeing people and interviewing them uninterrupted since the start of the Corona virus thing. I have notice a curious trend. People who are supposedly "high risk" (elderly) don't really mind coming in here without a mask. When I ask them about it, they usually same something like, "when it's my time, its my time". It
  6. That's a very racist statement I assure you that people who speak Spanish are Just as intelligent as you are and can make decisions about their health without your help.
  7. I agree. People don't often realize how heavily the government punishes poorer people for earning money. I have seen marginal effective tax rates for poor people exceed 60 percent on the tax return itself. If you add in loss of non tax related business the marginal effective rate can easily exceed 100 percent
  8. I am in favor of keeping the priest penitent privilege. As far as mandatory reporting, I am not sure it helps as much as people think. I often feel mandatory reporting may do more harm than good. Many people just won't talk about abuse if they know it will be reported immediately. Our family has helped someone report abuse and I really don't think the person would have opened up to us had they thought we would have automatically reported after first communication. After some time we were able to convince the mother to report and my wife called the police for her, the husband went t
  9. I think you come to the point. Privileges can be a 'potential get out of jail free card'. The Fifth amendment right to not be forced to testify against yourself is also a 'potential get out of jail free card'. The fourth amendment right to not be arbitrarily searched or arrested is also a 'potential get out of jail free card'. The right to an attorney, writ of habeas corpus, Trial by jury, right to appeal, confront your accusers, etc are all 'potential get out of jail free cards' These and other rights have all been used to let guilty people go unpunished. Our legal
  10. If a person knows that talking to a bishop is the same as talking to the police, then people won't talk to the bishop. The bishop won't know, and the bishop can do nothing to help anyone. His role as a faith community leader is diminished in that he can no longer help people in his community. He will be even more hamstrung from taking definitive action to protect innocent Children if he doesn't know. In this case, someone was trying to do something (although not enough). If person didn't talk to the bishop, than nobody would be doing anything. You think it is a travesty when th
  11. There are many times that breaking the law is the right thing to do, but when you choose to break the law, you need to be aware of the consequences. Breaking privilege may be justified in some cases, but the person breaking it has to live with the consequence of that as well. These might include having the person get away with their crime ( the person can assert the privilege to prevent the bishop from testifying and excluding all evidence obtained from the bishop's actions). People who are being abused and those who are abusing might be hesitant from seeking help from this bishop (
  12. Everyone here seems to be under the assumption that he Priest penitent privilege belongs to the priest (or the Church) The privilege belongs to the penitent. The attorney client privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney. Most people don't like the idea of Criminals having rights until they themselves are accused of a crime. None of you here are going to appreciate privileges until you start realizing that there may be times in your life that you need to be frank with your attorney, spouse, doctor or bishop without fearing that talking to these people is just another
  13. So you are OK with people being able to confess their sins confidentially to a lawyer and a doctor and a spouse but not to a spiritual leader?
  14. Why the distinction? do you think they are worse than lawyers, doctors and spouses? I know and work with plenty of Lawyers and (as a group) they are generally less moral than priests and doctors. I personally have seen much good come from the priest penitent privilege.
  15. No one should ever confess to the police. Confession is for the Judge.
  16. In my state privilege can be asserted to block testimony of child abuse for everyone I listed. Privilege is easily misunderstood. Its not the Clergy (or doctor, or attorney or spouse) that owns the privilege. It is the person confessing to those people that own the privilege. If privileged information improperly disclosed to the government it can cause all evidence obtained by that confession to be excluded causing the abuser to go free. In this case, if the bishop thought he was doing everyone a favor and report the abuse, his very action could cause the abuser to go free (as
  17. The law of privileges varies from state to state doctor patient privilege does exist in some states. in my state Doctors and attorneys are not required to report privileged information "419B.010 Duty of officials to report child abuse; exceptions; penalty. (1) Any public or private official having reasonable cause to believe that any child with whom the official comes in contact has suffered abuse or that any person with whom the official comes in contact has abused a child shall immediately report or cause a report to be made in the manner required in ORS 419B.015. Nothing contained
  18. Opposing party statements are defined as non hearsay. from the Federal Rules of evidence Section 801 (d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay: . . . (2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and: (A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity; (B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true; (C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject; (D) was made by the party’s
  19. are you also opposed to attorney client privilege?, Doctor patient privilege, Spousal Privilege? or is it just the priest penitent privilege?
  20. Wouldn't be hearsay. Statements made by the the accused can always be used against him in a court of law. Most likely the accused would claim the conversation was privileged. It would be the same if the persons spouse, psychologist, attorney or doctor were called to give testimony. The testimony would be barred due to privilege. The law respects certain confidential communications made to certain individuals.
  • Create New...