Those poor, poor priests...
-
martin_hughes wrote:
Yes, the abuse of children is intolerable. Yes, Catholicism has done itself no favours covering such abuses up. But it is entirely stupid, wrong and ignorant to apply the actions of a minority to the majority.
It is entirely appropriate to question the integrity and sincerity of an institution that has engaged in methodical abuse and protected the criminals. And that's what this is about. It's not about religion, Catholicism or Anglicism. It's about criminal abuse and a institution that thinks it's above secular law. And as long as the hierarchy is dominated by individuals who were directly involved, the entire institution is implicated. Trying to beg off by insisting it's the fault or responsibility of a select few bad apples is disengenuous in the extreme. If there is a silent majority of good priests, it's time they spoke up and forced change. Until that happens, they are complicit in the crimes of their organization. [edit] And the Vatican's attempt to portray it's hierarchy as victims comparable to Jews of the Holocaust is repulsive. Nauseating. And completely indicative of how far removed they are from an honest appreciation and appraisal of their position. [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Friday, April 2, 2010 7:14 PM
No, this is not about abuse. It's about your right to be indignant about something you haven't experienced and your right to pass judgement on it. I don't deny you your "rights", but you are wrong. You have no evidence of:
LunaticFringe wrote:
a[n] institution that thinks it's above secular law
LunaticFringe wrote:
[a]hierarchy is dominated by individuals who were directly involved
LunaticFringe wrote:
a silent majority of good priests
other than you've read in the popular press. Your opinion is baseless, without merit and lacking in anything like original thought. And I say again that your "opinion" that all Catholic priests are "pigs" deserves rebuke.
-
No, this is not about abuse. It's about your right to be indignant about something you haven't experienced and your right to pass judgement on it. I don't deny you your "rights", but you are wrong. You have no evidence of:
LunaticFringe wrote:
a[n] institution that thinks it's above secular law
LunaticFringe wrote:
[a]hierarchy is dominated by individuals who were directly involved
LunaticFringe wrote:
a silent majority of good priests
other than you've read in the popular press. Your opinion is baseless, without merit and lacking in anything like original thought. And I say again that your "opinion" that all Catholic priests are "pigs" deserves rebuke.
martin_hughes wrote:
No, this is not about abuse. It's about your right to be indignant about something you haven't experienced and your right to pass judgement on it.
It's the responsiblity of every citizen to confront criminal activity; criminal abuse of the vulnerable in particular. To maintain that only those who have been personally victimized may condemn the criminals is counter to the most basic idea of society holding criminals accountable, and protecting the vulnerable. And so what are you saying? That only those people who have been personally victimized should be upset? The rest of us should just groooooove in the holy goodness of the abusers, huh.
martin_hughes wrote:
a[n] institution that thinks it's above secular law
The history of protecting abusive priests and NOT calling secular authorites is all the proof needed for this assertion. Or have you been living in a cave for the last decade? Every instance in which a priest was transferred or otherwise sheltered instead of being turned over to secular authorities for criminal prosecution is an ironclad demonstration of this fact.
martin_hughes wrote:
[a]hierarchy is dominated by individuals who were directly involved
The Pope himself has now been implicated[^] in protecting pedophiles. Or is this another 'tabloid story'?
martin_hughes wrote:
a silent majority of good priests
On this you are correct; I have no proof or indication that such a majority may exist.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Friday, April 2, 2010 8:22 PM
-
But isn't the point that the majority do nothing about it?
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Complete rubbish, of course, Elaine. Are you stopping the paedophile/drug dealer/swindler in your community? Are they coming up to you and saying "Hi, I'm a paedophile/drug dealer/swindler - report me at your leisure"? Of course not. Would you want your boss to know what you get up to hour by hour, minute by minute? Of course not. It's ridiculous to expect the Church to know what individual priests are up to, but unforgivable if they attempt to cover up crimes. But it's also unforgivable to cast judgement, in ignorance, on an entire class of people.
-
martin_hughes wrote:
No, this is not about abuse. It's about your right to be indignant about something you haven't experienced and your right to pass judgement on it.
It's the responsiblity of every citizen to confront criminal activity; criminal abuse of the vulnerable in particular. To maintain that only those who have been personally victimized may condemn the criminals is counter to the most basic idea of society holding criminals accountable, and protecting the vulnerable. And so what are you saying? That only those people who have been personally victimized should be upset? The rest of us should just groooooove in the holy goodness of the abusers, huh.
martin_hughes wrote:
a[n] institution that thinks it's above secular law
The history of protecting abusive priests and NOT calling secular authorites is all the proof needed for this assertion. Or have you been living in a cave for the last decade? Every instance in which a priest was transferred or otherwise sheltered instead of being turned over to secular authorities for criminal prosecution is an ironclad demonstration of this fact.
martin_hughes wrote:
[a]hierarchy is dominated by individuals who were directly involved
The Pope himself has now been implicated[^] in protecting pedophiles. Or is this another 'tabloid story'?
martin_hughes wrote:
a silent majority of good priests
On this you are correct; I have no proof or indication that such a majority may exist.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Friday, April 2, 2010 8:22 PM
LunaticFringe wrote:
It's the responsiblity of every citizen to confront criminal activity; criminal abuse of the vulnerable in particular. To maintain that only those who have been personally victimized may condemn the criminals is counter to the most basic idea of society holding criminals accountable, and protecting the vulnerable. And so what are you saying? That only those people who have been personally victimized should be upset? The rest of us should just groooooove in the holy goodness of the abusers, huh.
No. I'm saying that those who are clueless and ignorant should be chastised and disabused of their false beliefs. According to you all Catholic priests are pigs[^]. Should all black people be considered drug-dealers just because some black people are drug dealers? Your logic suggest that they should, and thank God I don't follow it.
LunaticFringe wrote:
The history of protecting abusive priests and NOT calling secular authorites is all the proof needed for this assertion. Or have you been living in a cave for the last decade? Every instance in which a priest was transferred or otherwise sheltered instead of being turned over to secular authorities for criminal prosecution is an ironclad demonstration of this fact.
It's an "iron clad" proof of nothing but your inability to be an impartial judge.
LunaticFringe wrote:
The Pope himself has now been implicated[^] in protecting pedophiles. Or is this another 'tabloid story'?
Are you being deliberately stupid to quote the New York Times as "evidence", or do you truly believe such "news" is better than personal experience and would sway me to your point of view?
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
It's the responsiblity of every citizen to confront criminal activity; criminal abuse of the vulnerable in particular. To maintain that only those who have been personally victimized may condemn the criminals is counter to the most basic idea of society holding criminals accountable, and protecting the vulnerable. And so what are you saying? That only those people who have been personally victimized should be upset? The rest of us should just groooooove in the holy goodness of the abusers, huh.
No. I'm saying that those who are clueless and ignorant should be chastised and disabused of their false beliefs. According to you all Catholic priests are pigs[^]. Should all black people be considered drug-dealers just because some black people are drug dealers? Your logic suggest that they should, and thank God I don't follow it.
LunaticFringe wrote:
The history of protecting abusive priests and NOT calling secular authorites is all the proof needed for this assertion. Or have you been living in a cave for the last decade? Every instance in which a priest was transferred or otherwise sheltered instead of being turned over to secular authorities for criminal prosecution is an ironclad demonstration of this fact.
It's an "iron clad" proof of nothing but your inability to be an impartial judge.
LunaticFringe wrote:
The Pope himself has now been implicated[^] in protecting pedophiles. Or is this another 'tabloid story'?
Are you being deliberately stupid to quote the New York Times as "evidence", or do you truly believe such "news" is better than personal experience and would sway me to your point of view?
You are SERIOUSLY in denial, aren't you? If you can't even admit that protection of abusive priests hasn't been an isolated phenomenon, you're not going to be particularly objective of the clearly documented role of the pope in particular instances in Bavaria. And yes. The New York Times has a pretty sterling reputation for integrity. Trying to pass of a clearly documented instance as a 'tabloid story' is a clear indication of your own intransigence in the face of incontrovertible evidence. And I admit I'm no expert, but to the best of my knowledge, being born as a member of a particular race is a little different from voluntarily joining and continuing to belong to an organization which, in spite of your pathological denial, is now known the world over to have been an institutional abuser of children. [edit] spelling. [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Friday, April 2, 2010 9:14 PM
-
NY Times story - At Vatican Service, Persecution of Jews Is Invoked[^] Just plucks at your heartstrings, doesn't it? Suffering as the Jews have suffered, they are. Why, it must be terrible to see their opportunities for serial sexual abuse of children just slipping away. Sinead O'Connor deserved huge kudos for calling the pigs what they are. (Washington Post editorial[^]) It's not a church, it's an international organization of child molesters. And the Poop has been revealed to be just as guilty as the worst of them. Yup, my heart bleeds for the suffering of the priests. :mad: X| Ah - a 1 vote. Must be someone is upset that the priests can no longer diddle little boys with impunity. ;P [edit] grammar tweak [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Friday, April 2, 2010 2:31 PM
We don't appear to see eye-to-eye on much but I mostly agree with you on this one.Perverted priests abusing their 'god' given position of trust to abuse young boys is beyond disgusting and then to compare the vilification they are rightly receiving to the suffering of the Jews shows that they are morally bankrupt. Have a 5 for me: presumably a random visiting priest gave you one...
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
As soon as it mentioned the church, it became about religion. The problem here, is that you can't separate religion from the church because the church is the institution of the church. If it had just been denouncing the paedos, then I doubt anybody could have any argument - they should be chemically castrated, actually sod that, all it needs is a bit of biblical eye for an eye, and a couple of bricks; job done.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
While I disagree with you on the appropriateness of the topic in this forum I approve of you two bricks policy. Leave the chemicals to the captain, two bricks just seems like the right thing to do.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Got to disagree with you on this one Pete, this isn't about religion. It is about abuse (in many senses) of power. Faith does not come into it.
Join the cool kids - Come fold with us[^]
Jeez. Will people read what I actually said? I said somebody might have done this for that reason. It wasn't me - I just tried to come up with a reason why somebody might have 1-voted. You see, this is why this type of thing is always contentious - people immediately take polarized views and don't bother to actually review the facts.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
Complete rubbish, of course, Elaine. Are you stopping the paedophile/drug dealer/swindler in your community? Are they coming up to you and saying "Hi, I'm a paedophile/drug dealer/swindler - report me at your leisure"? Of course not. Would you want your boss to know what you get up to hour by hour, minute by minute? Of course not. It's ridiculous to expect the Church to know what individual priests are up to, but unforgivable if they attempt to cover up crimes. But it's also unforgivable to cast judgement, in ignorance, on an entire class of people.
martin_hughes wrote:
but unforgivable if they attempt to cover up crimes
Yet this is what is being done, and it has been done for a long time in multiple diocese and by an appreciable percentage of the priesthood (appreciable = greater than 1). Each cover up, transfer and avoidance would pollute the entire decision making team. That polluted group has then moved up the food chain thereby corrupting all they touch. Using that logic I'd accuse the church of being corrupted. And yet there must be a majority of priests out there who are good, honest people who work for a corrupt organisation.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Complete rubbish, of course, Elaine. Are you stopping the paedophile/drug dealer/swindler in your community? Are they coming up to you and saying "Hi, I'm a paedophile/drug dealer/swindler - report me at your leisure"? Of course not. Would you want your boss to know what you get up to hour by hour, minute by minute? Of course not. It's ridiculous to expect the Church to know what individual priests are up to, but unforgivable if they attempt to cover up crimes. But it's also unforgivable to cast judgement, in ignorance, on an entire class of people.
-
You are SERIOUSLY in denial, aren't you? If you can't even admit that protection of abusive priests hasn't been an isolated phenomenon, you're not going to be particularly objective of the clearly documented role of the pope in particular instances in Bavaria. And yes. The New York Times has a pretty sterling reputation for integrity. Trying to pass of a clearly documented instance as a 'tabloid story' is a clear indication of your own intransigence in the face of incontrovertible evidence. And I admit I'm no expert, but to the best of my knowledge, being born as a member of a particular race is a little different from voluntarily joining and continuing to belong to an organization which, in spite of your pathological denial, is now known the world over to have been an institutional abuser of children. [edit] spelling. [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Friday, April 2, 2010 9:14 PM
LunaticFringe wrote:
You are SERIOUSLY in denial, aren't you?
About what? This:
LunaticFringe wrote:
If you can't even admit that protection of abusive priests hasn't been an isolated phenomenon, you're not going to be particularly objective of the clearly documented role of the pope in particular instances in Bavaria.
or this:
LunaticFringe wrote:
in spite of your pathological denial
If you are going to make up false accusations and bogus arguments, do try and make sure that there isn't any evidence to hand that blows them out of the water. For the record, and I'm going to make this extremely easy for you, here are my posts on the subject: http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3425978/Re-Those-poor-poor-priests.aspx[^] http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3426006/Re-Those-poor-poor-priests.aspx[^] http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3426029/Re-Those-poor-poor-priests.aspx[^] No reader of those posts would find any support for your accusations; your baseless and pointless mud-slinging exercise has failed spectacularly. Go home son and take your self-righteous indignation and false accusations with you, because you're wasting everyone's time.
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
You are SERIOUSLY in denial, aren't you?
About what? This:
LunaticFringe wrote:
If you can't even admit that protection of abusive priests hasn't been an isolated phenomenon, you're not going to be particularly objective of the clearly documented role of the pope in particular instances in Bavaria.
or this:
LunaticFringe wrote:
in spite of your pathological denial
If you are going to make up false accusations and bogus arguments, do try and make sure that there isn't any evidence to hand that blows them out of the water. For the record, and I'm going to make this extremely easy for you, here are my posts on the subject: http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3425978/Re-Those-poor-poor-priests.aspx[^] http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3426006/Re-Those-poor-poor-priests.aspx[^] http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3426029/Re-Those-poor-poor-priests.aspx[^] No reader of those posts would find any support for your accusations; your baseless and pointless mud-slinging exercise has failed spectacularly. Go home son and take your self-righteous indignation and false accusations with you, because you're wasting everyone's time.
martin_hughes wrote:
No, this is not about abuse. It's about your right to be indignant about something you haven't experienced and your right to pass judgement on it. I don't deny you your "rights", but you are wrong. You have no evidence of: LunaticFringe wrote: a[n] institution that thinks it's above secular law LunaticFringe wrote: [a]hierarchy is dominated by individuals who were directly involved
You claimed I had no evidence to back up these allegations. I then provided you a link to a story in the Times that detailed the allegation. Your response was to call it a tabloid story and deny it's relevance. When that characterization of the Times is disputed, your rhetoric evolves to call the story 'false accusations and bogus arguments'. Coincidentally enough, this was posted recently in the Back Room - Primitive Defense Mechanisms 1. Denial Denial is the refusal to accept reality or fact, acting as if a painful event, thought or feeling did not exist. It is considered one of the most primitive of the defense mechanisms because it is characteristic of early childhood development. Many people use denial in their everyday lives to avoid dealing with painful feelings or areas of their life they don’t wish to admit.
martin_hughes wrote:
Go home son and take your self-righteous indignation and false accusations with you, because you're wasting everyone's time.
I'd say there's ample evidence in this thread that others share my feelings. I'm hardly alone in this. And your intransigence when confronted with evidence is pretty amusing. :laugh:
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
We don't appear to see eye-to-eye on much but I mostly agree with you on this one.Perverted priests abusing their 'god' given position of trust to abuse young boys is beyond disgusting and then to compare the vilification they are rightly receiving to the suffering of the Jews shows that they are morally bankrupt. Have a 5 for me: presumably a random visiting priest gave you one...
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
martin_hughes wrote:
No, this is not about abuse. It's about your right to be indignant about something you haven't experienced and your right to pass judgement on it. I don't deny you your "rights", but you are wrong. You have no evidence of: LunaticFringe wrote: a[n] institution that thinks it's above secular law LunaticFringe wrote: [a]hierarchy is dominated by individuals who were directly involved
You claimed I had no evidence to back up these allegations. I then provided you a link to a story in the Times that detailed the allegation. Your response was to call it a tabloid story and deny it's relevance. When that characterization of the Times is disputed, your rhetoric evolves to call the story 'false accusations and bogus arguments'. Coincidentally enough, this was posted recently in the Back Room - Primitive Defense Mechanisms 1. Denial Denial is the refusal to accept reality or fact, acting as if a painful event, thought or feeling did not exist. It is considered one of the most primitive of the defense mechanisms because it is characteristic of early childhood development. Many people use denial in their everyday lives to avoid dealing with painful feelings or areas of their life they don’t wish to admit.
martin_hughes wrote:
Go home son and take your self-righteous indignation and false accusations with you, because you're wasting everyone's time.
I'd say there's ample evidence in this thread that others share my feelings. I'm hardly alone in this. And your intransigence when confronted with evidence is pretty amusing. :laugh:
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
You claimed I had no evidence to back up these allegations. I then provided you a link to a story in the Times that detailed the allegation. Your response was to call it a tabloid story and deny it's relevance. When that characterization of the Times is disputed.
That's not evidence, it's journalism so I stand by my original statement.
LunaticFringe wrote:
your rhetoric evolves to call the story 'false accusations and bogus arguments'.
No. I called your attack on me false and bogus.
LunaticFringe wrote:
Primitive Defense Mechanisms 1. Denial ...
I have denied nothing. I have clearly outlined inconsistencies in your reasoning, logic and inability to distinguish evidence from hearsay and rumour and also your unwillingness to substantiate such hearsay and rumour.
LunaticFringe wrote:
I'd say there's ample evidence in this thread that others share my feelings. I'm hardly alone in this.
So what? That's called the fallacy of majority belief. It is not evidence.
LunaticFringe wrote:
And your intransigence when confronted with evidence is pretty amusing.
Another false and bogus claim given: 1) You have provided no evidence. 2) You have not verified the facts of what you have presented. 3) My position is not now and nor was it what the Church hasn't covered up acts of paedophilia, but that your proposition that because some priests are paedophiles all priests are or at least complicit is demonstrably false.
-
Complete rubbish, of course, Elaine. Are you stopping the paedophile/drug dealer/swindler in your community? Are they coming up to you and saying "Hi, I'm a paedophile/drug dealer/swindler - report me at your leisure"? Of course not. Would you want your boss to know what you get up to hour by hour, minute by minute? Of course not. It's ridiculous to expect the Church to know what individual priests are up to, but unforgivable if they attempt to cover up crimes. But it's also unforgivable to cast judgement, in ignorance, on an entire class of people.
y'know, its completely unrelated but this is exactly how it is with regards to Muslim Extremists and the rest. Like you though, I believe that its unforgivable and deplorable that any institution would cover up or attempt to cover up crimes by members of that institution.
martin_hughes wrote:
But it's also unforgivable to cast judgement, in ignorance, on an entire class of people.
I'm going to get that engraved onto a gold plate and hang that on my wall.
If the post was helpful, please vote, eh! Current activities: Book: Devils by Fyodor Dostoyevsky Project: Hospital Automation, final stage Learning: Image analysis, LINQ Now and forever, defiant to the end. What is Multiple Sclerosis[^]?
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
You claimed I had no evidence to back up these allegations. I then provided you a link to a story in the Times that detailed the allegation. Your response was to call it a tabloid story and deny it's relevance. When that characterization of the Times is disputed.
That's not evidence, it's journalism so I stand by my original statement.
LunaticFringe wrote:
your rhetoric evolves to call the story 'false accusations and bogus arguments'.
No. I called your attack on me false and bogus.
LunaticFringe wrote:
Primitive Defense Mechanisms 1. Denial ...
I have denied nothing. I have clearly outlined inconsistencies in your reasoning, logic and inability to distinguish evidence from hearsay and rumour and also your unwillingness to substantiate such hearsay and rumour.
LunaticFringe wrote:
I'd say there's ample evidence in this thread that others share my feelings. I'm hardly alone in this.
So what? That's called the fallacy of majority belief. It is not evidence.
LunaticFringe wrote:
And your intransigence when confronted with evidence is pretty amusing.
Another false and bogus claim given: 1) You have provided no evidence. 2) You have not verified the facts of what you have presented. 3) My position is not now and nor was it what the Church hasn't covered up acts of paedophilia, but that your proposition that because some priests are paedophiles all priests are or at least complicit is demonstrably false.
martin_hughes wrote:
That's not evidence, it's journalism so I stand by my original statement.
Well, until you have the power to convene a court that satisfies you, I'm afraid it'll have to do. Let's face it; your intransigence is so deeply seated you'll dispute any evidence at all. It has nothing to do with the integrity or suitability of a reference; if it contravenes your position, you'll claim it's 'not evidence'.
martin_hughes wrote:
No. I called your attack on me false and bogus.
WHAT attack on you? You are the one who initiated this sub-thread by calling me 'stupid, wrong and ignorant', simply because you disagreed with my opinion. Every post you've made has been laced with invective.
martin_hughes wrote:
your proposition that because some priests are paedophiles all priests are or at least complicit is demonstrably false.
Really? OK, so where's your proof that my assertion is false? Where is YOUR 'evidence'? I haven't seen any attempt to even present an argument. All you've done is attempt to denigrate me personally, my position... and the NY Times. :laugh: :laugh:
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
y'know, its completely unrelated but this is exactly how it is with regards to Muslim Extremists and the rest. Like you though, I believe that its unforgivable and deplorable that any institution would cover up or attempt to cover up crimes by members of that institution.
martin_hughes wrote:
But it's also unforgivable to cast judgement, in ignorance, on an entire class of people.
I'm going to get that engraved onto a gold plate and hang that on my wall.
If the post was helpful, please vote, eh! Current activities: Book: Devils by Fyodor Dostoyevsky Project: Hospital Automation, final stage Learning: Image analysis, LINQ Now and forever, defiant to the end. What is Multiple Sclerosis[^]?
Except for the Belgians! :)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
digital man wrote:
presumably a random visiting priest gave you one...
;) :-D
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
I will give you a 5 for that! I was in desperate need of a Euphemism, then you gave me one.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
I will give you a 5 for that! I was in desperate need of a Euphemism, then you gave me one.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
martin_hughes wrote:
That's not evidence, it's journalism so I stand by my original statement.
Well, until you have the power to convene a court that satisfies you, I'm afraid it'll have to do. Let's face it; your intransigence is so deeply seated you'll dispute any evidence at all. It has nothing to do with the integrity or suitability of a reference; if it contravenes your position, you'll claim it's 'not evidence'.
martin_hughes wrote:
No. I called your attack on me false and bogus.
WHAT attack on you? You are the one who initiated this sub-thread by calling me 'stupid, wrong and ignorant', simply because you disagreed with my opinion. Every post you've made has been laced with invective.
martin_hughes wrote:
your proposition that because some priests are paedophiles all priests are or at least complicit is demonstrably false.
Really? OK, so where's your proof that my assertion is false? Where is YOUR 'evidence'? I haven't seen any attempt to even present an argument. All you've done is attempt to denigrate me personally, my position... and the NY Times. :laugh: :laugh:
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
It has nothing to do with the integrity or suitability of a reference; if it contravenes your position, you'll claim it's 'not evidence'.
Another unsubstantiated claim. You don't know what my position is, and not because I haven't made it perfectly clear.
LunaticFringe wrote:
WHAT attack on you?
Does this ring any bells for you?
LunaticFringe wrote:
You are SERIOUSLY in denial, aren't you? ...your pathological denial... ...your intransigence when confronted with evidence is pretty amusing.
LunaticFringe wrote:
You are the one who initiated this sub-thread by calling me 'stupid, wrong and ignorant', simply because you disagreed with my opinion.
And another false claim. Here's what I actually wrote, rather than your made up quotation:
martin_hughes wrote:
I don't deny you your "rights", but you are wrong. No. I'm saying that those who are clueless and ignorant should be chastised and disabused of their false beliefs. Are you being deliberately stupid to quote the New York Times as "evidence"
- You are wrong, as I have explained. 2) Your "beliefs" are born out of both cluelessness and ignorance as I have explained. 3) It was stupid to try and pass off as evidence a piece of journalism, as I have explained.
LunaticFringe wrote:
OK, so where's your proof that my assertion is false?
It's a simple matter of deductive validity: P1: Some priests abuse children P2: Some priests have covered up the abuse of children C: All priests abuse children or are involved in covering up abuse The (your) conclusion is false. Even if I were to accept your "evidence" as evidence - and I have explained why I don't - your proposition is not supported by it.
LunaticFringe wrote:
Every post you've made has been laced with invective.
I think "truth" was the word you were looking for there.