This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Heckler
What happens when a city goes into bankruptcy? Do they find someone to sell it to? Do they sell off individual pieces to investors and everyone else has to move out?
I think this was a joke, but it intrigued me enough to go look up a couple things. I guess "Chapter 9" baankruptcy is specifically for municipalities, which I didn't know. One link inside Nathanyal's article is pretty informative and Wikipedia's article is also interesting:
USCourts.gov Chapter 9 information
Wikipedia: Chapter 9, Title 11, United States Code
Post by
Nathanyal
Yeah, fair enough, but if you were to find someone bored enough to look through Asian foods, there would probably be a lot that are black in color.
Yeah, but this is a hotdog we're talking about here. Something that isn't normally black as charcoal. If you watched the video, not saying you didn't, you would see the bun looked like it was stuck in an oven at 500 degrees for a long time.
And we are talking about it so yeah, lol.
Would you rather talk about how Detroit is bankrupt?
I heard about this on the radio this morning.
What happens when a city goes into bankruptcy? Do they find someone to sell it to? Do they sell off individual pieces to investors and everyone else has to move out?
Personally I don't know the fine details, but Heckler brought up some good links. Here is the jest of what they're doing.
The purpose of chapter 9 is to provide a financially-distressed municipality protection from its creditors while it develops and negotiates a plan for adjusting its debts. Reorganization of the debts of a municipality is typically accomplished either by extending debt maturities, reducing the amount of principal or interest, or refinancing the debt by obtaining a new loan.
And the reason it happened is that people are leaving Detroit, it use to be one of the larger cities in the US but has shrank in population. Less people mean less income for the city.
Post by
Squishalot
From Heckler's link:
Although similar to other chapters in some respects, chapter 9 is significantly different in that there is no provision in the law for liquidation of the assets of the municipality and distribution of the proceeds to creditors.
I'm impressed that anybody lends to city councils at all on that basis.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Nathanyal
That would be my guess. There seems to be a lot of vacant factory buildings in the city. And some companies are going to other cities/states because they might have better benefits for putting a plant there.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Dragalthor
I wasn't sure where to put
this
either here or in the feminism thread but the simple fact that this sort of thing still happens in the world absolutely disgusts me. I have visited the UAE and in particular Dubai many times in the course of my work and I was under the impression that Dubai, of all the Gulf states, was at least one where this sort of sexist and barbaric treatment of victims of sexual assault, would never happen.
Post by
Squishalot
http://www.smh.com.au/national/hands-off-doctors-take-debate-over-smacking-to-legal-lengths-20130725-2qnf4.html
Not sure if this belongs in the DotD thread or here, but figured I'd start it off here, and if discussion gets going, then we can move it over.
Post by
Gone
There is a big line between physical punishment and child abuse.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I maintain the same position that I had the last time this issue came up: I believe all forms of corporeal punishment are wrong and have grave psychological ramifications. You hit a fully grown man who can defend himself and it's assault, you hit your defenseless child and it's perfectly acceptable. There is a dichotomy there that not only doesn't make sense to me, but sickens me. It's true that a child is not fully developed mentally or physically, and since because of this there is a reasonable assumption under the law the the parent is responsible for things the child does, it does stand to reason that there is some allowable level of restraint allowed. Drawing the line can be tricky, as many delicate matters are under the law; however, that alone should not make physical punishment allowable.
Post by
Adamsm
Not according to some people.
Post by
Azazel
I maintain the same position that I had the last time this issue came up: I believe all forms of corporeal punishment are wrong and have grave psychological ramifications. You hit a fully grown man who can defend himself and it's assault, you hit your defenseless child and it's perfectly acceptable. There is a dichotomy there that not only doesn't make sense to me, but sickens me. It's true that a child is not fully developed mentally or physically, and since because of this there is a reasonable assumption under the law the the parent is responsible for things the child does, it does stand to reason that there is some allowable level of restraint allowed. Drawing the line can be tricky, as many delicate matters are under the law; however, that alone should not make physical punishment allowable.
This. I've never heard of a study that showed a positive outcome of physical punishment, 'cept for maybe conservapedia lol.
Post by
Gone
Just because something might be wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal. There needs to be much more of a consensus among experts on physical punishment before the state steps in and says parents can't smack their children.
Children in foster care are much more likely to be abused as opposed to children living with their family's. So my problem becomes this; the state takes a child away because the parents smacked him/her, something that many people believe does not constitute real abuse. Then what happens to the child? They go into the system where they are even more likely to be abused and grow up with psychological damage due to being separated from their parents?
And even if you discount that, social service and child welfare systems are already notoriously overburdened with cases of serious abuse, and now we're going to further bog the system down and further spread the limited manpower over parents who smack their kids?
I still haven't decided where I stand on physical punishment, but I can 100% say that I do not believe the government should not be stepping in over smacking. I feel like the very idea is absurd. What next, parents who curse in front of their kids?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Just because something might be wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal. There needs to be much more of a consensus among experts on physical punishment before the state steps in and says parents can't smack their children.
I consider it just the opposite. Until such a time as there is near universal consensus that hitting your child does no harm, isn't it common sense that we don't do it? In what strange world do we live in where you can hit people and the burden of proof is on the people saying that hitting is wrong?
And where are the studies saying that hitting adults is bad? Should I apply your logic to that and demand that the government let me hit adults until they scientifically demonstrate that I am harming them? If not, then what's the difference?
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Just because something might be wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal. There needs to be much more of a consensus among experts on physical punishment before the state steps in and says parents can't smack their children.
I consider it just the opposite. Until such a time as there is near universal consensus that hitting your child does no harm, isn't it common sense that we don't do it? In what strange world do we live in where you can hit people and the burden of proof is on the people saying that hitting is wrong?
Again, there's a difference between wrong and criminal. The burden of proof should of course lean towards non-violence, I agree with you there, but it should also lean away from state intervention.
Do you have a response to the pragmatic issues I pointed out in passing a law like this, or is it just the morality of the argument that you had a problem with?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Clearly the system has problems. That doesn't make ignoring a wrong right. If not the State, then who? No one else has the authority to deal with the issue.
Post by
Gone
Clearly the system has problems. That doesn't make ignoring a wrong right. If not the State, then who? No one else has the authority to deal with the issue.
If the options are ignoring a possible wrong, and taking action that could likely make it worse, then I choose the first one.
Do you really feel like smacking a child, and nothing more, constitutes the level of abuse that would warrant government intervention though? If your parents smacked you as a kid, would you want the government to come take you away? I certainly wouldn't.
There are many parents out there who physically discipline their children, and still love them very much and provide very good homes for them. I could even say I agree with you, that smacking a child is wrong. But I don't feel as though that, in and of itself, it's enough to call for state action.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
When did I say the answer to the problem is taking children away from their parents? You mandate parenting classes, you make them go to counseling, you inconvenience them with a mandatory social worker visit every week. There are many, many things that can be done to make parents less likely to hit their kids. This is why you don't base moral decisions off of a general sense of pragmatism. Because unless you have gone through and shown where every intervention leads to a bad outcome, you haven't done enough to make a decision based on pragmatism.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.