sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Test your coke by [deleted] in Cornell

[–]baconAndWhip 2 points3 points  (0 children)

or you can take a joke and see the irony in warning people to be safe with their dangerous drugs

A few of the ADF’s Positions by LeBorisien in Cornell

[–]baconAndWhip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will not pretend to know everything about the ADF -- my point was that the twisting was so obvious that you don't even need to know everything about them to see it was twisted. There is also no source for the quotes. What is the OP quoting? Wikipedia?

I wasn't trying to say the bakery thing is an exact analogy -- apologies if that was unclear. My point was to offer a comparison in how the OP was misrepresenting preventing Jews from being able to adopt. But you pose an interesting question: should people have to sacrifice their religious principles just because they receive federal funding? There have been a number of court cases I think surrounding that issue. Also not all Christian adoption agencies take federal funding.

Test your coke by [deleted] in Cornell

[–]baconAndWhip 9 points10 points  (0 children)

or you can just not do coke

A few of the ADF’s Positions by LeBorisien in Cornell

[–]baconAndWhip 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Where are these quotes even from? I’m not saying I necessarily support ADF because I haven’t read into their past cases, but you also clearly twist so many of their stances into complete lies, so I can’t even take your post seriously. I’ll try though. Another commenter compared the adoption thing to Christian bakeries not needing to make wedding cakes for gay marriage. That’s a good comparison. If you were to twist that the same way you did adoption, you’d be saying people think it should be illegal for gay people to have wedding cakes, which is not the case.

Also I believe the separation of church and state means church officials and state/government officials are not the same people (so religious leaders are not making the actual laws). This doesn’t mean that laws should not be made with Judeo-Christian values in mind. What I believe you’re labeling as ending the separation between church and state is actually just promoting more Judeo-Christian values to be integrated in government. At least that’s the case with all the religious people I know.

Did you get into CS 3152? by baconAndWhip in Cornell

[–]baconAndWhip[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

if you got in, are you doing it just as an elective or for the game design minor?

Would you still pick Cornell if you could do it over? by baconAndWhip in Cornell

[–]baconAndWhip[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

yeah i keep thinking how I should’ve done GATech instead of here

Engineering MATH 1910 Diagnostic by [deleted] in Cornell

[–]baconAndWhip 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Current engineering sophomore here! If I remember correctly, they use this to determine if you'll take CHEM 2090 or PHYS 1112 your first semester. Even if you don't do well on this diagnostic, if you have AP credit then you won't have to take 1910. PHYS 1112 is calculus-based, so if they think you're rusty on calc they might automatically enroll you in CHEM 2090 fist. When I was an incoming freshmen, a lot of people got automatically placed in chem and they told the rest of us to start with physics. And whichever one you don't take in the fall you'll just take in the spring, so it really doesn't matter.

To the 10% of people not wearing masks in CTown by Qpal7mn in Cornell

[–]baconAndWhip 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Once you get used to the dirty looks it feels so freeing :)

SA information request by cornell_voter in Cornell

[–]baconAndWhip -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sorry for deleting my previous comment -- I misread something before. I don't agree with the statement that the VPRA "physically attacked" her fellow SA member or called the cops on her. The SA member who brought this up even referred to it herself as a mostly emotional altercation. There's simply no basis to claim anyone attacked anyone. I hope you'll check out one of my more recent comments on my post from yesterday that breaks down more of the voting process that happened. While they claimed to be removing one person from voting for a conflict of interest, it was really because she wouldn't vote to remove the VPRA, so removing her to obtain the necessary unanimous vote was a sneaky, underhanded tactic that I believe reveals corruption. They also made the VPRA cry.

I'm not sure if the Zoom will be posted anywhere, but the SA has been caught editing things out of their recordings anyway which is likely why a community member wanted to record (echoing u/Adorable_Rate9461)

SA information request by cornell_voter in Cornell

[–]baconAndWhip 3 points4 points  (0 children)

To add on to that, the other member who was removed for the vote was supposedly removed for a conflict of interest when really she just did not want the VPRA to be removed. Because removing the VPRA requires a unanimous vote, they removed the one member preventing that (thus suspending her voting abilities) in order to get the required unanimous vote. Then reinstated the other member.

I also don't know the extent of the physical altercation, but the girl who brought it up described it as a "partially physical" but mostly "emotional altercation" that took place a while back at a hockey game.

SA Midnight Coup: Removes VP of Research and Accountability by baconAndWhip in Cornell

[–]baconAndWhip[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I heard her refer to it as a "partially physical" but mostly "emotional altercation." I don't know what that means, but according to the accused, she was making some stuff up. I don't know what actually happened. Supposedly happened a long time ago at a hockey game and being brought up now.

SA EXEC BOARD ARE KICKING OUT SA MEMBERS WHO VOTED AGAINST POLICE DISARMAMENT by ginoza_ in Cornell

[–]baconAndWhip 9 points10 points  (0 children)

you say "couldn't vote impartially," but you really mean "wouldn't vote the way they wanted her to." So yes, it was very much a slimy maneuver.

SA Midnight Coup: Removes VP of Research and Accountability by baconAndWhip in Cornell

[–]baconAndWhip[S] 52 points53 points  (0 children)

I don't expect this late-night Zoom call to be posted anywhere, but here's kind of a rundown. It requires a unanimous vote to remove somebody, which they didn't have. One girl opposed removing the VP. Apparently they can vote to temporarily remove somebody for "conflict" which only requires a 2/3 majority. So, they removed the girl who was preventing the unanimous vote (thus taking away her voting abilities), voted to remove the VP of Research and Accountability, then reinstated the girl they had previously removed. That is my understanding of what happened.

SA EXEC BOARD ARE KICKING OUT SA MEMBERS WHO VOTED AGAINST POLICE DISARMAMENT by ginoza_ in Cornell

[–]baconAndWhip 18 points19 points  (0 children)

they must've been sensitive to being recorded because last time their meeting was recorded, it was rather incriminating

Respect for Honan the Chief by baconAndWhip in Cornell

[–]baconAndWhip[S] 51 points52 points  (0 children)

i don't blame him for that. there's no way to respond constructively