Those poor, poor priests...
-
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.
-
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.
martin_hughes wrote:
And another false claim. Here's what I actually wrote, rather than your made up quotation:
martin_hughes wrote:
- But it is entirely stupid, wrong and ignorant to apply the actions of a minority to the majority.
(http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3425978/Re-Those-poor-poor-priests.aspx[^]) So... which part of the quote did I make up? :rolleyes:
martin_hughes wrote:
- 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.
:laugh: No. You explained that you disagreed. It doesn't make me wrong any more than it makes you right. What it does do, is demonstrate it's a valid point of debate. As for your obsession over what is or is not 'evidence', it was presented as substantiation of my allegation re the pope's involvement in protecting pedophiles. It serves that purpose well. Your attempts to cast it as 'tabloid story' or 'not evidence' don't do any harm to it's credibility or relevance.
martin_hughes wrote:
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.
That's your conclusion, not mine. My assertion is that they share moral responsibility if they do nothing to purge their organization of individuals involved in protecting pedophiles. THAT is what I said. I challenge you to find a quote where I claimed YOUR conclusion. This is pretty pointless, though. You aren't engaging in debate, you're just falsely representing my position without offering any substantive argument of your own. I don't see any point in continuing.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
martin_hughes wrote:
And another false claim. Here's what I actually wrote, rather than your made up quotation:
martin_hughes wrote:
- But it is entirely stupid, wrong and ignorant to apply the actions of a minority to the majority.
(http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/3425978/Re-Those-poor-poor-priests.aspx[^]) So... which part of the quote did I make up? :rolleyes:
martin_hughes wrote:
- 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.
:laugh: No. You explained that you disagreed. It doesn't make me wrong any more than it makes you right. What it does do, is demonstrate it's a valid point of debate. As for your obsession over what is or is not 'evidence', it was presented as substantiation of my allegation re the pope's involvement in protecting pedophiles. It serves that purpose well. Your attempts to cast it as 'tabloid story' or 'not evidence' don't do any harm to it's credibility or relevance.
martin_hughes wrote:
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.
That's your conclusion, not mine. My assertion is that they share moral responsibility if they do nothing to purge their organization of individuals involved in protecting pedophiles. THAT is what I said. I challenge you to find a quote where I claimed YOUR conclusion. This is pretty pointless, though. You aren't engaging in debate, you're just falsely representing my position without offering any substantive argument of your own. I don't see any point in continuing.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
So... which part of the quote did I make up?
The bit where you claimed I called you those things.
LunaticFringe wrote:
As for your obsession over what is or is not 'evidence'
Quite an important "obsession", I think you'll find.
LunaticFringe wrote:
I challenge you to find a quote where I claimed YOUR conclusion.
Easy:
LunaticFringe wrote:
Until that happens, they are complicit in the crimes of their organization.
LunaticFringe wrote:
You aren't engaging in debate, you're just falsely representing my position without offering any substantive argument of your own.
Wrong on both counts. I haven't falsely represented anything you've said and I have, at great length explained to you why, your conclusion is wrong.
LunaticFringe wrote:
I don't see any point in continuing.
Agreed :D
-
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.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
and a couple of bricks; job done.
I know from my old cat that removing the marbles does not stop mating, even though he got broken before he know what to do. If you leave them alive and at large, they are a threat. First use the two bricks below, then on their heads,until they are deads. I am not equating them, other than they are about sexual preference. If homosexuality or heterosexuality can not be 'unlearned', neither can pedophilia.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
and a couple of bricks; job done.
I know from my old cat that removing the marbles does not stop mating, even though he got broken before he know what to do. If you leave them alive and at large, they are a threat. First use the two bricks below, then on their heads,until they are deads. I am not equating them, other than they are about sexual preference. If homosexuality or heterosexuality can not be 'unlearned', neither can pedophilia.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
If you leave them alive and at large, they are a threat. First use the two bricks below, then on their heads,until they are deads.
I presume you are talking about paedophiles, not cats! (Sees Elaine sharpening claws)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
RichardM1 wrote:
If you leave them alive and at large, they are a threat. First use the two bricks below, then on their heads,until they are deads.
I presume you are talking about paedophiles, not cats! (Sees Elaine sharpening claws)
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
Ah - a 1 vote. Must be someone is upset that the priests can no longer diddle little boys with impunity.
Maybe somebody downvoted you for what they perceive as you violating the rules of this forum. "The SoapBox is not for flame wars, personal vendettas, or endless debate about climate change, religion and US politics. Anything inappropriate for this forum will be deleted immediately." [Edit]There. Because people didn't bother to read the context of what I wrote, I'll clarify it. I offered an opinion aw to why somebody might have done this. Now, if you want to disagree with me, you can at least start off from a point of informed opinion.[/Edit]
"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.
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Onyx
modified on Saturday, April 3, 2010 5:16 AM
The rule isn't about religion, it's about endless debate about religion.
-
The rule isn't about religion, it's about endless debate about religion.
See my edited post. I was saying why somebody else might have voted 1. I didn't vote.
"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.
-
See my edited post. I was saying why somebody else might have voted 1. I didn't vote.
"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.
-
See my edited post. I was saying why somebody else might have voted 1. I didn't vote.
"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.
I don't have you down as a 1-voter. I was just pointing out that the grammar of the rule doesn't prohibit all debate about religion (or politics or GW for that matter).
-
Poor Pete... still paying the piper for that little bit of moderation... ;) [edit] Stuck the 'joke' icon on this - just wanted to make sure you knew I was teasing... ;) [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
Damn you. We must fight. Possibly to some West Side Story. ;P Actually, sod that.... We fight to Motley Crue and Kiss.
"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.