This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.
To view other archive projects go to
https://archives.mabination.com
-
Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2014-12-03 06:00
When it comes to helping families in need, the Salvation Army turns a cold shoulder to one class of people: Teenage boys. A family in Johnson City, TN, found this out recently when, on a freezing cold night, they asked the organization for shelter. But because their family of five contained a 15-year-old boy, they were turned down.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/02/pedophile-panic-at-the-salvation-army-no
And after that, the Salvation Army did take the family in—minus the teen boy.
He's not sleeping on the streets. He's now in a mental health facility. He had a breakdown, his dad says, because he thought it was his fault the family was turned away from shelter.
-
Zekkii wrote on 2014-12-03 10:14
[Image: http://i.imgur.com/q3iCWqE.jpg]
-
Taycat wrote on 2014-12-03 14:06
oh yeah, i heard about this
their reason?
"well he's too old for the women's section, but we're too scared he'll get sexually violated in the mens section...."
I MEAN REALLY, I'M SURE HE'D BE SAFE WITH HIS DAD
-
Compass wrote on 2014-12-03 14:16
Nice to know they would support pedophiles rather than teenage boys.
-
Taycat wrote on 2014-12-03 14:24
Quote from Compass;1256051:
Nice to know they would rather support pedophiles rather than teenage boys.
the salvation army has been a bad organization forever
-
Campylobacter jejuni wrote on 2014-12-06 19:16
Wow, herpaderp. Morons. Let's not go to quick on the SA blaming though, so far this is an isolated local incident. I hope that really is the nature of their decision.
-
Adrianblade wrote on 2014-12-11 04:22
It's nice though that the local police did help them by taking them to a hotel. And when they tried paying for the room, the hotel waived the room cost when they learned what was going on. Which then meant that the money the police pooled together instead went to groceries for the family. How come people aren't talking about that? Always gotta focus on the negative sheesh.
-
Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2014-12-11 04:27
Quote from Adrianblade;1256769:
It's nice though that the local police did help them by taking them to a hotel. And when they tried paying for the room, the hotel waived the room cost when they learned what was going on. Which then meant that the money the police pooled together instead went to groceries for the family. How come people aren't talking about that? Always gotta focus on the negative sheesh.
Because none of that would have happened/needed to happen without the initial douchebaggery.
-
Zekkii wrote on 2014-12-11 09:21
Score one for the fuzz.
-
Campylobacter jejuni wrote on 2014-12-11 16:57
Quote from Adrianblade;1256769:
It's nice though that the local police did help them by taking them to a hotel. And when they tried paying for the room, the hotel waived the room cost when they learned what was going on. Which then meant that the money the police pooled together instead went to groceries for the family. How come people aren't talking about that? Always gotta focus on the negative sheesh.
That's actually really great, but we're talking about the Salvation Army doing the wrong thing. WOuld you rather we just ignore whenever something bad happens?
It could've been mentioned at the end of the article though...
-
Adrianblade wrote on 2014-12-11 18:04
Quote from Campylobacter jejuni;1256817:
That's actually really great, but we're talking about the Salvation Army doing the wrong thing. WOuld you rather we just ignore whenever something bad happens?
It could've been mentioned at the end of the article though...
It was mentioned in the article. In fact a good third of the article was about that. Which makes my point. Sure the SA screwed the pooch on this one, but people seem to always focus on JUST the negative. Then there are the comments. They just touch upon SA's screwup and instead rail against the cops for some bizarre reason. I just don't get people nowadays.
-
Campylobacter jejuni wrote on 2014-12-11 18:34
Oh woops.
-
Taycat wrote on 2014-12-11 19:54
Quote from Adrianblade;1256825:
It was mentioned in the article. In fact a good third of the article was about that. Which makes my point. Sure the SA screwed the pooch on this one, but people seem to always focus on JUST the negative. Then there are the comments. They just touch upon SA's screwup and instead rail against the cops for some bizarre reason. I just don't get people nowadays.
because if they were allowed to stay at the salvation army, they wouldn't need all the help they got
they'd be just fine and not forced to find somewhere else to stay and everything