[stone monkey]

@ Gem - Try number 2, apply it to religion and call me back in the morning... http://dictionary.re...rowse/supporter

Yeah, facetious. I know. But you really are trying to look very hard for an argument....

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 11 April 2010 - 10:30 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on 11 April 2010 - 10:29 PM, said:

@ Gem - Try number 2, apply it to religion and call me back in the morning... http://dictionary.re...rowse/supporter

Yeah, facetious. I know. But you really are trying to look very hard for an argument....

I am? LOL! There you go again, assuming things you shouldn't be assuming. You're damn right I am going to call you out on it, when you assume things. Nobody here made the 'you atheists have richard *beep* dawkins on your side hee hee' comment, at least last I checked. So you should at least be courteous enough not to go down that road. And what the *beep* do you do? YOU GO DOWN THAT ROAD. What is the *beep* POINT of AGREEING with you if you are going to GO DOWN THAT ROAD. Real smooth, man, real smooth. I hope you're happy.

Edited out some words, because it was unclassy of me it use them.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 12 April 2010 - 01:49 PM

[maro]

Considering the money the RCC has, they should be sued for every last brass farthing.

It's even worse considering they have abrogated their Moral standing to cover it up

[Gem Windcaster]

maro, on 12 April 2010 - 12:03 AM, said:

Considering the money the RCC has, they should be sued for every last brass farthing.

It's even worse considering they have abrogated their Moral standing to cover it up

Yeah, but in a way, it isn't surprising they tried to cover it up, since it's a very big and long lived organization that is built on conservatism. When they let that get in the way of their own standards, it's easy to draw the conclusion that they have outlived themselves. That money they spent on those predators could for instance have been used to build wells in poor countries; just a thought.

[Cause]

Gem Windcaster, on 11 April 2010 - 10:38 PM, said:

stone monkey, on 11 April 2010 - 10:29 PM, said:

@ Gem - Try number 2, apply it to religion and call me back in the morning... http://dictionary.re...rowse/supporter

Yeah, facetious. I know. But you really are trying to look very hard for an argument....

I am? LOL! There you go again, assuming things you shouldn't be assuming. You're damn right I am going to call you out on it, when you assume things. Nobody here made the 'you atheists have richard fucking dawkins on your side hee hee' comment, at least last I checked. So you should at least be courteous enough not to go down that road. And what the fuck do you do? YOU GO DOWN THAT ROAD. What is the FUCKING POINT of AGREEING with you if you are going to GO DOWN THAT ROAD. Real smooth, man, real smooth. I hope you're happy.

Gem you always do this. You call Morgoth out as having played semantic word games for suggesting that pursuing rapists is not the some as oppressing religious minorities but offer no explanation. You ask SM to explain what support for religion is, when its obvious to everyone. Then finally when he suggest you are seeking an argument you blow up in his face and tell him not to presume. Your actions in your posts are always at odds with your words. This is why people find arguing with you so often resembles banging heads against walls. You shift your own pre-defined goal posts, whenever someone after reading your posts responds to them and scores a hit you tell them not to presume. You think after reading a thousand posts by you, 'knowing' you for years through this forum we have no insight into your mind and character?

So I want to know how has Morgoth played semantics when he suggests someone be punished for obstructing the ends of justice the same as the religious oppression of minority religeons?

[Gem Windcaster]

Cause, on 12 April 2010 - 07:55 AM, said:

Gem you always do this. You call Morgoth out as having played semantic word games for suggesting that pursuing rapists is not the some as oppressing religious minorities but offer no explanation.

It isn't obvious? Morgy was answering Tistes post in a way that definitely was using semantics to twist the meaning of Tistes post.

Cause, on 12 April 2010 - 07:55 AM, said:

You ask SM to explain what support for religion is, when its obvious to everyone. Then finally when he suggest you are seeking an argument you blow up in his face and tell him not to presume. Your actions in your posts are always at odds with your words. This is why people find arguing with you so often resembles banging heads against walls. You shift your own pre-defined goal posts, whenever someone after reading your posts responds to them and scores a hit you tell them not to presume. You think after reading a thousand posts by you, 'knowing' you for years through this forum we have no insight into your mind and character?

The reason you don't understand my reaction Cause, can't be anything than a lack of imagination - if you go back and see what SM really was saying, you should get it. Hopefully. His comment about 'supporter of religion' is very generalizing and unnecessary. I still don't understand what other purpose that comment has than to insult and wound people that 'support religion'. Secondly, what does that concept mean in the context of this thread? Does it mean that all religious people are on the same side? Because that is exactly the kind of thing that makes me explode. It's wrong on so man levels to even hint that in this thread.

Cause, on 12 April 2010 - 07:55 AM, said:

So I want to know how has Morgoth played semantics when he suggests someone be punished for obstructing the ends of justice the same as the religious oppression of minority religeons?

He twisted the meaning of Tiste's post, implying that Tiste meant that 'being sued for concealing cases of child rape is comparable to suppressing people of opposing views'. Since it's pretty obvious that Tiste would not think those are the same, I reacted the way I did. Because you gotta love when people use semantics to twist a debate to their advantage. It was very effective too.

[Cause]

Tiste's words were quite clear

Quote

Yet again Dawkins does a spectacularly "religious" thing to make a point that he dislikes religion. It brings to mind the old catholic church arresting people who had opposing views to them...

He implies Dawkins is attacking the pope because they have opposing views (This is undoubtedly true to the extent that Dawkins has a very obvious and never secret agenda). However that it neatly ignores the fact their is evidence that suggests the current pope once acted to conceal molesting priests for the greater good of the church and is now the head of a world spanning organisation that continues to do much of the same to make its point, that the charge has no basis simply because Dawkins is the one who made, it is intellectual dishonesty. If Morgoth had not called him on it I would have, and I'm sure many others on this forum too depending on who got there first.

This post has been edited by Cause: 12 April 2010 - 12:18 PM

[Gothos]

Looks like Gem just went for the "Most Negrepped Post In The Boards" award. Winner?

[Gem Windcaster]

Cause, on 12 April 2010 - 12:17 PM, said:

Tiste's words were quite clear

Quote

Yet again Dawkins does a spectacularly "religious" thing to make a point that he dislikes religion. It brings to mind the old catholic church arresting people who had opposing views to them...

He implies Dawkins is attacking the pope because they have opposing views (This is undoubtedly true to the extent that Dawkins has a very obvious and never secret agenda). However that it neatly ignores the fact their is evidence that suggests the current pope once acted to conceal molesting priests for the greater good of the church and is now the head of a world spanning organisation that continues to do much of the same to make its point, that the charge has no basis simply because Dawkins is the one who made, it is intellectual dishonesty. If Morgoth had not called him on it I would have, and I'm sure many others on this forum too depending on who got there first.

I can't say if I would have reacted the same if Morgy had worded his post as above, but I still think Tiste is being deliberately misunderstood. Tiste's post is open for interpretation - Tiste doesn't say that Dawkins motives should be weighed against the accusations against the pope, or the catholic church. He is questioning Dawkins motives, perhaps implying that Dawkins is the wrong man for the job. I don't see how one can honestly argue that Tiste is setting the accusations against the pope opposite Dawkins motives.

What Tiste does is simply comparing Dawkins attitude to certain historical events where the catholic church arrested people of opposing views. I read the fact that he chose the catholic church to compare to as a dig at Dawkins, and not a dig at the accusations against the pope per se. Tiste is simply pointing out the obvious irony that Dawkins uses a horrific tragedy to further his political agenda, as others in this thread already have pointed out.

Perhaps there's a slight difference in focus of the people involved here; but it is just as much intellectual dishonesty to ignore Dawkins agenda as it is to not look past it. People here have no problem voicing one part of it, so I can't see why Tiste aren't allowed to voice the other part without getting his words twisted into nonrecognition. A simple: I think the tragedy is worth looking past the motives of Dawkins, would have sufficed. There was no reason to make Tiste's post into something it was not.

[Gothos]

And now you're explaining someone else's post? I think Simmy knows best what he meant and if anyone should clarify anything, it's him. You've probably shown more disrespect for him right now than any disdainful comment could have.

If anything here is ironic, is you using a controversy you weren't part of to seek attention yourself.

This post has been edited by Gothos: 12 April 2010 - 01:12 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

Gothos, on 12 April 2010 - 01:10 PM, said:

And now you're explaining someone else's post? I think Simmy knows best what he meant and if anyone should clarify anything, it's him.

If anything here is ironic, is you using a controversy you weren't part of to seek attention yourself.

Excuse me? I am not allowed to answer Cause's post about my reaction to Morgy? I would have gladly left that discussion at my sarcastic comment to Morgy, but Cause brought it up, and I think I'm entitled to reply when someone make posts like that. Of course Tiste knows what he meant the best, that's why I didn't made a larger post in answer to Morgy in the first place.

[caladanbrood]

This ought to get moved to the religion board so that the trolling can really get going




Not surprised if this is really all down to Hitchens, who is one of the few people with even less credibility than Dawkins.

However, I think arresting the people who were actually doing the abusing would be a much more useful step, though less of a publicity stunt, I will admit.

[Slick Mongoose]

The Pope was directly involved in covering up the rape of children. Why the fuck is it left to the more strident athiests to be making this point? Why attack them when they do? What the fuck is wrong with the world? People are attacking Dawkins?

Children were raped. A worse crime short of genocide it's hard to imagine. Every abuser should be locked up. Everyone who was involved in covering up the abuse should be locked up. And that includes the Pope.

OK, so the Pope will not be arrested, he is a head of state. That doesn't change the fact that he should, if there was any justice, be arrested. If he had any personal morality he'd be turning himself in.

[rhulad]

@OP, If this can serve to lift (even a little) the veil of silence that surrounds the church and what goes on behind it's closed doors, then good. It's too bad that it has to be someone like Dawkins doing this instead of one of the many victims that the pope helped to cover up since a large number of people are going to see this as some sort of self service for his anti-religious agenda. I doubt that anything will really come of it but it's a step in the right direction. I think that not only should the clergymen that molested/raped the children but also the people that help cover it up should be held accountable for the crimes that they committed.

The thing that I have never understood about the Church is how it can condone this kind of behavior. If I found out that someone I knew was molesting and or raping anyone, let alone a child, you can bet your a** that I would be going straight to the cops. So why does the Church which is supposed to be the entity by which people can set their moral compass covering up the immoral actions that are committed by it's members?

[Garak]

Quote

The thing that I have never understood about the Church is how it can condone this kind of behavior.

To do otherwise would mean kicking out such a large number of people it would be humiliating. Besides, the church prefers to go "La!La!La!" whenever molesters are discovered.

[stone monkey]

Given that's exactly the argument I assumed you were looking for, it looks like I'm being shouted at for making entirely warranted assumptions. These things happen, so I guess I should be sanguine.

Anyhow, on topic. It would appear that a fair bit more has come to light about Ratzinger's involvement with the apparent cover-up; including a letter he wrote in the 80s refusing a request from a diocese to defrock a priest who had been abusing children in his care. As more of this comes out the more it appears that the current Pope has hands that are far from clean in this matter.

[Morgoth]

I don't know if people have seen this. It's been floating along the web for some months. If not it's definitely worth the time to watch it through.


Stephen Fry on the topic: Is the Catholic Church a force for good.
http://www.intellige...4040&sgmt=23171

[Garak]

Quote

it appears that the current Pope has hands that are far from clean in this matter.

You didn't actually think this was coincidence did you?

Also, interesting video. He does have a big glaring point. But then again, finding ammo vs the chruch is oh so easy.

This post has been edited by Garak: 12 April 2010 - 06:33 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on 12 April 2010 - 06:01 PM, said:

Given that's exactly the argument I assumed you were looking for, it looks like I'm being shouted at for making entirely warranted assumptions. These things happen, so I guess I should be sanguine.

Now, if you only could explain what those warranted assumptions are exactly, I'd be thrilled.

stone monkey, on 12 April 2010 - 06:01 PM, said:

Anyhow, on topic. It would appear that a fair bit more has come to light about Ratzinger's involvement with the apparent cover-up; including a letter he wrote in the 80s refusing a request from a diocese to defrock a priest who had been abusing children in his care. As more of this comes out the more it appears that the current Pope has hands that are far from clean in this matter.

Man, that is whole business is so horrible, it makes me sick.

[Powder]

rhulad, on 12 April 2010 - 05:18 PM, said:

The thing that I have never understood about the Church is how it can condone this kind of behavior. If I found out that someone I knew was molesting and or raping anyone, let alone a child, you can bet your a** that I would be going straight to the cops. So why does the Church which is supposed to be the entity by which people can set their moral compass covering up the immoral actions that are committed by it's members?

RCC != whole church. There are a great many of us who do not condone this behavior. I'm with Christopher Titus on this issue.

-Powder