Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I would advertise my morality as objective. Everything but axioms are relative to something, normally when one says "moral relativist" they mean morals relative to whims. Morals that are not relative to values is not defined.IF you have chosen a subjective standard THEN you can make objective statements based on that standard BUT that doesn't make your standard anything other than subjective.
What makes a standard subjective?
[TheMorningsStar] Both what is good and the shape of the earth are natural facts of reality.Then please demonstrate the natural fact of what is good with the kind of objective evidence that you have for the shape of the earth.
You do not justify a sphere is a sphere, you define a sphere and then prove the earth is one. You must understand that at some point there will be a definition, an axiom establishing the concept which does is not proved by anything else.
Values and morals obviously do not exist in a universe without life, morality is about choice, values are about conditional future realities that choice affects. The fundamental natural value is life. Nothing proves life is valuable, that is what value means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Seriously, I don't understand this obsession people have. There are legitimate things to criticize Trump for, he is not a good person, but so many people have such a delusional level of hate that they will spout off anything in order to try and make sure Trump is seen as the worst. All it does is makes it so when someone actually sees that these delusional talking points are BS that they will start questioning if all these criticisms are. Focus on the legitimate issues with the man, of which there are plenty, and not these delusional ass-pulled ones.
Here here
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Is everyone on this site a moral relativist? What arguments have made it so popular here or is it just coincidence?
I would advertise my morality as objective. Everything but axioms are relative to something, normally when one says "moral relativist" they mean morals relative to whims. Morals that are not relative to values is not defined.
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Looks like it works with Tor, I would be up for some games. I am not new though, been playing since college.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Eh, the end purpose of debates vary, depending on different individuals goals.I think any goal besides the truth is wrong, and according to my aesthetics, gross.Except animal f***ing, apparently.
Did you expect anyone to forget the context in the span of one post?
"I think any goal [of debate] besides the truth is wrong, and according to my aesthetics, gross."
No exception to speak of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Eh, the end purpose of debates vary, depending on different individuals goals.
I think any goal besides the truth is wrong, and according to my aesthetics, gross.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Didn't read thread, just responding to OP:
I don't give a fig about morality. I only want to promote human wellbeing and protect the public health. In any case where morality does not support these two considerations I do not support morality and in any case where morality is in opposition to these two considerations I oppose morality.Questions, comments and criticisms welcome.
Morality is a code of behavior derived from values, to list off values and then say "despite morality" is like adding cinnamon despite taste.
If your values are wellbeing and public health, then a morality is implied by that.
If you mean to say the values you listed supersede all your other values or any value anyone else may hold... congratulations you are now at level 0 of the ethics tech tree. Everybody from Hitler to mother Theresa has values and pursues them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
If you had responded to #46, I 'might have said more, or I might have chosen to excuse myself from further conversation.
The human lifespan is too short to try and debate people who say they don't want to debate. I did find your offered reason to be indicative of a common confusion, debate is a means to the end but the end is not conversion. It is the truth.
No one honest thinks they're wrong or that they will be proven wrong. No one honest expects someone else to make such a confession. However when there is a true contradiction somebody is wrong.
Even if someone is very certain I will still debate because the moment you think certainty renders debate obsolete is the moment you make yourself vulnerable to delusion. Conviction and faith are indistinguishable without debate.
So I'll debate flat earthers, big foot people, holocaust deniers, etc... etc... on principle. You said "I'm not going to change my opinion", yea neither are the flat earthers; but that doesn't mean I won't lead them to the error. Yea yea you think I'm the flat earther in this situation, but that is the point of debate. To turn the abstract necessity of someone being wrong into a concrete determination of who is wrong.
Almost certainly someone is going to claim someone else is stubborn, just wants the last word, etc.. etc... then some spiel about "agree to disagree" yada yada. Most of the people here are like 10 year veterans of online "debate", the only way you don't know what I'm saying by heart is if you're already crazy. Every once in a while though, it reaches the level of formality and precision where the truth is very obvious. Then it doesn't matter who admitted what because those who love the truth will see it.
I'll walk the path with anyone, but if you don't know what the point of the journey is there is no reason to start.
Checking to see if my theory of coals 'meaning, was correct.
So charades, have fun :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I don't agree with the idea of animals being capable of consensual f***ing with humans, myself.
Yea you said so earlier in the thread, and you also said you didn't want to support your assertion with an argument. Now are you actually claiming you know what the hell "A Modest Proposal" has to do with underdog's point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Lemming, if he wanted to make an argument or a point he wouldn't have been so cryptic.... but hey maybe you can play charades; none of my business....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Debaters should be engaging with each other, not "moderators"; you would hope this was known on a debate site.
Created:
Posted in:
They don't debate, they give campaign speeches and zingers in close proximity to each other. We're not missing anything, except maybe body language analysis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
You uh, don't know the difference between tunneling and hosting do you?As a matter of fact, I do. (I knew what you meant when you opted to say "routed" rather than "hosted.") Nevertheless, it's inconsequential as the listed server for this website is run by a U.S. company.
Well no, the way it works is if your server (whether host or proxy) is within a country they can come down on you, order you to shut off, and arrest you if you happen to be a citizen or present.
So USA & California could order cloudflare to stop serving. Russian Federation (if the host is there) could order the website censored or removed. It's about who can show up with guns.
USA & California can show up to cloudflare data-center with guns. Russian Federation can show up to a physical location in Russia (and now parts of Ukraine) with guns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
That isn't so easy to confirm, it's routing through cloudflare.Which is headquartered in San Fransisco, California (United States)--immune from Russian law.
You uh, don't know the difference between tunneling and hosting do you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The user therefore has the entire website's server data and functionality dependent on Russian law.Anyone with decent browser extensions or the inclination to conduct a google search can determine that this website's servers aren't located anywhere near Russia.
That isn't so easy to confirm, it's routing through cloudflare.
The metrics JS is from russian yandex locations: https://mc.yandex.ru/metrika/tag.js
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Don’t people give horses handjobs for their cum as like part of their profession or something?
Yes, more in the old days. Now they have stands and artificial vaginas which make it much easier. They do this for several other animals as well. The primary purpose is semen quality tests and artificial insemination. During artificial insemination they use previously collected semen and stick a cold metal tube up the you know where. Often the female is tied to keep her from hurting the totally kosher and unexcited human who only wants to stick something in her privates for 'practical' reasons.
In cattle production bulls sometimes have it as bad as the cows, they stick a prod up the anus of a bull and induce ejaculation with electricity.
Isn’t that technically bestiality, or do they have to swallow it too?
Basically yes. You can tie up a mare so she can't escape or fight back, run a train of studs on her while she is screaming, but if it's for money that's fine. If on the other hand you take months gaining her trust and friendship and give her some fingering in an open field where she could kick your chest in it's rape if it excites you to give her pleasure.
The concept is totally disconnected from the harm to or consent of the alleged victim, it's all about the human's motivations. Which is one of the reasons I call those arguments excuses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
The scientific status quo is not asserted without evidence. ;-)
The BoP is created by your assertions. If you aren't asserting anything then you had nothing to say in the first place and you're simply wasting people's time.
No. The present accepted understanding of gender has not occurred without substantiation. Ie. The burden has been met.
And your opposition can just as easily claim the arguments have been debunked else where. Your burden has not been met.
If there is no proof (or support) it should be treated as false even if there is no proof it is false.If there is no proof for a position, it's truth is dubious - not false. A claim of "False" comes with its own burden. ;-)
That is an untenable epistemological strategy. The number of false statements approaches infinity, your thought time is finite.
Created:
@RM, you don't think on multiple layers.
Not all death is killing, not all killing is genocide.
That was the point. A million people didn't die from weapons in Iraq.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Well, incumbent Vladimir Putin won reelection for his second consecutive (fourth overall) term in office with 77% of the vote.
Almost the safest and most secure election in history I hear...
Created:
-->
@Stephen
So that is a clear no then.
This is all you posted at first, then you edited it. I would have responded to the edited-in parts below if I knew they were made.
Well I can tell you. Hubbard admits to covering up the sexual abuse by "ELEVEN" members of the clergy. Those are the words of Hubbard himself, and just as the Boston Globe and the Daily Mail reported and I don't care what you believe about the court or it's proceedings.
You claimed a relevant transcript existed, refused to provide it until after I found it myself, then you pretended I didn't read it when I did, now you claim what I read wasn't what you were talking about (yet it is the PDF you posted a link to), finally you don't care if I believe your hearsay in absence of a transcript. There is nothing I can do about that.
Sexual abuse of Children IS RIFE in the Roman Catholic Church. And the likes of you not only tolerate it,
I do not tolerate it, people like you enable it by persisting in the absurd notion that clergy are who you call when you hear a report of sexual abuse.
but decide it is all the fault of the children and their parents.#7
In the circumstances I described certainly. This is a general rule as well, anyone who takes a settlement rather than putting it to a jury of their peers has forfeited any claim to injustice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Personally, I have no problem with legalized bestiality. People say animals can't consent, but when have we cared about animal consent? We kill them for food. I'm pretty sure having consensual sex with them isn't as bad for them.
A concise and accurate analysis.
Created:
@RM, read again I didn't accuse Ukraine of doing anything. People can die without being killed, from starvation, disease, and old age.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM See post #10, obviously impersonated PMs and access to past PMs are unacceptable. The tags would revert so the permanent record would be genuine. Ruining people's reputation by fabricating quotes seems to be kosher around here, a well known mechanic that does not remain in the permanent record is hardly worse.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I wasn't referring to Iraq as justified or unjustified, I was simply saying that the assertion that US or Russian troops are going around intentionally killing people (up to a million) because of their race is extraordinary. It requires extraordinary evidence.
In war as in peace there must be means, motive, and opportunity to make a strong argument for a crime. Means and opportunity I'll grant, motive I won't. Nazis had a motive, they broadcast it everywhere. They were all but given orders in most cases. Japanese war crimes were not centrally planned, but the motive was still visible in the culture of the army units and how they justified themselves to each other and to war tribunals.
Whatever Russia or USA's geopolitical goals there is no race that needs to die to make it happen. Russians and Ukrainians especially don't even see themselves as different races. You may as well call the burning of Georgia genocide for all that makes sense. Contrast to the Uighur thing, where the CCP finds the culture AND genes of those people unacceptably alien to the point of essentially mandated breeding programs (which actually is rape).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
profile links would have to be disabled, you don't want to click on one name, go to a the wrong profile and PM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
@SkepticalOne
[SkepticalOne] I have no burden to uphold the status quo. It is the status quo because that burden has already been met. If you want to challenge it, you have your burden in front of you and your audience should be the scientific community.
This is false. The status quo is merely the coincidence of an arbitrary cultural state arrived at by highly chaotic dynamics.
The only coherent BoP is the one implied by rational epistemology, namely: If an object or a relationship is claimed to exist, that claim requires proof. If there is no proof (or support) it should be treated as false even if there is no proof it is false.
[thett3] I don't think "my position is justified and yours isn't, and no I won't say why or justify my position because I assert that mine is the status quo and the status quo is always right!" is a serious response, particularly not from a self described skeptic.
Indeed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think swapping front facing identity should be doable, custom but doable. You can't swap passwords. Then your replacement would get to change your settings and see all PMs. Never going to fly.
Created:
Conspiracy theory? What conspiracy did I allege?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You think user data is in a unix file? What dark cave filled with thousands of flashing blinking lights have you been in?
No way a site like this works without a relational DB.
Created:
Look, just because a million people died does not mean the US killed a million people (if that number is even close to accurate). Just because people die in Ukraine does not mean Russia killed those people.
Even when civilians are killed, if they are collateral that cannot be classed as genocide. That is cheapening the word (as people cheapen racism, pedophilia, nazi, fascist, communist, rape and a bunch of other words)
Genocide is the intentional killing of the unarmed or innocent for the purpose of destroying a genome (race). It's a high bar, it isn't often met. Don't bother to quote some modified definition to me, like I said there are people with an interest in cheapening the word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's an interesting idea, I think after enough familiarity though it wouldn't take too long to figure out who is saying what. It would be even more interesting to try and act like your mask.
Also some people would not want to participate and you probably shouldn't make them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If you take him at his word, but he did ask for people to give him the info publicly. I think if mods had done that, and used the word "dox" explicitly your case for hypocrisy would be sound... or if he had kept to PMs and they still banned him.He said to email it to him. The email address is now censored.
He still asked for the info publicly. Show me mods asking for doxing publicly and I'll agree. I don't think people should be creating secret conspiracies to dox people, but at least that wouldn't have the same chilling effect (until of course they start the blackmail).
So why is “extravagant lying,” which objectively was not even the case here and fallout thread harassment even mentioned in the ban?
That is false, you cannot prove it is not the case and in my opinion the balance of evidence points to an extravagant lie.
I said people shouldn't be banned for something so difficult to prove as intention, but you certainly haven't proved the inverse; that he was totally honest in what he said. If he was, he has a screw loose.
Created:
Posted in:
I remember the first time I read Atlas Shrugged, when I was about 13. I was so bored with it. I thought it was stupidly long, tediously written and sexually bizzare. Now, as an adult in Joe Biden's America, I read Atlas Shrugged as a lighthouse beautifully shining through a raging storm of governmental creation, warning against the dangers of a jagged, rocky shores into which our crash seems fated.
We would have a lot in common if you believed in reason. Shame.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
2) IP information is potentially doxing, but that was not published, no mod asked anyone to find his IP or info, they just used it.Wylted wasn’t going to post the info either lol
If you take him at his word, but he did ask for people to give him the info publicly. I think if mods had done that, and used the word "dox" explicitly your case for hypocrisy would be sound... or if he had kept to PMs and they still banned him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Why do you think a website's purported Code of Conduct prohibits reporting criminal activity to law enforcement?
That is totally irrelevant. Reporting criminal activity was not a reason for the ban, no one responsible for the ban has suggested it was, nor was there any criminal activity to report. It is only the magnificent scale of your misrepresentations induces me to comment BTW.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Ok so you have inferred that IP data was used, and RM thinks Wylted posted a suicidal rant with potentially his real name.
Notes based on what has appears to be the case so far:
1) Someone posting their own information with the intention of it being public and someone else repeating it is not doxing.
2) IP information is potentially doxing, but that was not published, no mod asked anyone to find his IP or info, they just used it.
So given that would, Wylted have been banned if he personally used clues I dropped to call my local police department? I don't know, I think leaving clues is just an inherent risk of being online.
Think about it this way: if Wylted could use private information he obtained, but it would be doxing to give that information to other site members; then how could other site members get private information and share it with him? If others sharing it with him is doxing, then him asking to be given that information is a request to dox whether he used that word or not.
If there was the slightest hint that anybody, mod or not, would be sending police to your door if you said the wrong thing I think the same chilling effect would occur as proper doxing. *insert sponsered VPN segment here*
As for the justification for doxing as it were, RM said Wylted had a suicidal rant. Now did he say he wanted to commit suicide or was it just something people perceived as nihilistic and therefore it was assumed he was suicidal? What if they assumed he was nihilistic and then on top of that assumption assumed again he was suicidal?
Suppose he said "The purpose of life is not to climb mountains" and the mods assumed that since the only reason to live is to climb mountains Wylted must have no reason to live, and since he has no reason to live he must be suicidal. That would be the correct analog for this latest situation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
If this happened is there no record of it you can link to?
Saying "I've sent someone to see if he's ok" is a hell of a lot different than asking "somebody find out where he is". One is calling for doxing and the other is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
It was definitely violent, but it wasn't insurrection. They thought they were the loyal ones. That's how it always goes though. You're only a traitor if you lose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Looking to that, I would say that is the incorrect way of phrasing the ban and looking at the COC, while it can be done as an harrassment, I would not consider this the case due to ADOL self inflicted wounds in the scenario, all attacks were fair game, and personally, I did not see any CoC violations.
I have one problem with this and that is that fabricated quotes are not self-inflicted wounds. That did fall under the umbrella of impersonation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
They don't have the monopoly on fallacies, just a large market share.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I think you mean Tim Fool. “A coward and a phony,” “a joke,” “staggeringly arrogant,” “totally full of shit,” “not smart” and “a bumbling doofus” are a representative sample of how those who worked with Pool at digital media companies described him. Most did so on the condition of anonymity, in some instances citing possible reprisals by Pool and harassment from his fans.
"The worst journalist... except for everyone else who claims to be a journalist" - Anonymous [it's me]
Created:
-->
@Stephen
So you have read the court transcript, yes or no?
I have read large chunks of:
STATE OF NEW YORKSUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY_____________________________________________STIPULATION AND ORDER CONCERNING THEDEPOSITION OF DIOCESE OF ALBANY BISHOPEMERITUS HOWARD J. HUBBARD IN CHILD VICTIMSACT CASES_____________________________________________EXAMINATION OF BISHOP EMERITUS HOWARD J
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Damn brother D you should be a south park character.
DO NOT MAKE ME REITERATE TO YOU AGAIN, UNDERSTOOD?!
No... not the... anything but the..... BIBLE SLAP®️!
Like I said to Stephen I keep responding as long as a reasonable person could perceive an earnest argument. Thanks to:
Logic 101 precludes that if you can’t answer your division of religious faith when questioned, and in this case ADREAMOFLIBERTY in being a Cathylick, then you obviously are a Cathylick but you don’t want to admit it for obvious reasons of your embarrassing churches misdeeds! 2+2=4.
You and I are beyond that point. Logic 101 rofl!
Created:
-->
@Stephen
And your opinion is based on what exactly? Do you have any legal training or experience.. at all.
Based on legal commentary I've heard over my lifetime, I have no experience or training. It's pretty disingenuous to ask a question, insist on an answer twice, and then impeach the qualifications of the person you asked when you get an opinion... especially when the question and answer are irrelevant to my point.
Well I am sure that any powerful organisation such as The Roman Catholic Church defending themselves against any false accusations of Child Sex Abuse in their ranks
You are shifting the goalposts. I never denied that there was child sex abuse by clergy, I denied that it's the church's responsibility investigate or keep records of it. I also doubted that there was ever any policy in place designed to coverup crimes or protect pedophiles.
You have simply been clutching at straws. And not for the first time on this thread.
You've confused yourself, my points stand.
and yet whenever you look into it, it reads like "we should have done better",Does it? Better that what? Better at hiding the Child Sex Abuse in their ranks or stamping it out?
Better at preventing it or punishing it because they [as epitomized by Ratzinger], like so many, seem to think it's their job.
because they think they're responsible for the actions of priests just like you do.And so does any level headed person of the planet.
Then those level headed persons would apply the principle consistently. They do not. When there is a pedophile judge they do not declare that government a pedophile organization (well the level headed ones don't). When there are some pedophiles found at Disney they do not declare Disney to have a pedophile agenda (well the level headed ones don't).
Failing to act is not the same thing as a coverup.Clutching at very thin straws in a vain attempt to absolve The Roman Catholic Church. You have failed.
Not in my opinion.
The OP and myself. Try to keep up.Stop telling lies. The OP doesn't even mention the word "error".
That doesn't mean the OP didn't invoke the concept. There are such things as synonyms and implications. The lack of error is perfection, does the brother D claim the church is perfect?
Stop with your barrel scraping bullshite.
The record stands for the objective observer to review.
Nope, the Roman Catholic Church claims many times to have conducted their own investigations into these accusations of Child Sex Abuse in their ranks, AND THEN DECIDED TO HIDE THEIR FINDINGS. . HERE>>> " instead [ of reporting it, he] kept the allegations against Bentley, and others, secret out of concern for 'scandal and the respect of the priesthood.' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10657343/Ex-Albany-bishop-acknowledges-covering-abuse-allegations.html
See last.
and I broke it down for you. HERE>>#20
Post #20 does not contain the precise or approximate date on which Bentley is purported to have admitted to sexual abuse.
I did not go and find it because I had the BoP I was curious.No you just didn't want to see it for yourself and have to face the facts.
See last
I can't imagine why Hubbard would lie, but I also can't imagine why a social worker would call a diocese and not the police.That's because Hubbard hasn't lied about the priest David Bentley admitting he has sexually abused children.. read it for yourself. AND THEN ADMITTED TO HIDING IT.
See last
but I also can't imagine why a social worker would call a diocese and not the police.That's because Hubbard admitted to covering it all up and THEN lying about the cover up. Are you a dumb as you are making out to be. READ THE COURT DEPOSITION THAT THE DEFENCE LAWYERS DIDN'T WANT TO DISCLOSE. or would you like me to show you that too.Here you go you lazy, bone idle, apologetic sycophant.Read this first, you apologetic clown..
I can tell you did not read the relevant parts of the transcript or else you would have recognized that I quoted from it in post #25. Thus I did read it. If you had read post #25 you would have also seen:
I've now read the relevant parts of the deposition and the details of the abuse were not mentioned.
So either you're too lazy to read my post while demanding I go read 680 pages of deposition, or you're being dishonest by intentionally pretending I didn't read it and needed to be given a link.
Now since you claimed to be relying on the contents of the deposition for an argument it was your job to post when challenged in the first place, it's good you got around to it.
Now to the meat of the issue, no Hubbard did not admit to lying to anyone about Bentley and he certainly did not use the word "coverup", he said he didn't report it. That's all he said. Look at my question that you claim to answer "but I also can't imagine why a social worker would call a diocese and not the police." and you said "because Hubbard admitted to covering it up and then lying about the coverup".
That explains nothing, if you believe the testimony of Hubbard, the social commissioner called him, but the police never did. There is no evidence of a police investigation at that time (in the deposition). Now if the social worker knows they brought in the bishop, and they called the police, how is it that the police never asked Hubbard a question? The only possibility is that the social commissioner person called only the bishop and not the police. How could Hubbard have possibly have caused that to happen, how can you describe that as a coverup?
That's like saying the police called you and told you to 'handle' a murder, and since you didn't report it back to FBI you're covering it up. Cue:
You also ignored a very important part of the deposition I posted in #25
[Questioner:] But you never reported any of these to police that we have talked about so far, correct?[Hubbard:] No. I didn't report it, but they [police or prosecutor] did report to me and asked me to do something about it.
You may not care about this in the context of whatever strawman you're beating up, but it is extremely relevant to my original and consistent point. It either brings his entire testimony into question or it is exactly what I said in post #7
[ADOL:] No I hadn't heard the name before. Was he [John Geoghan] charged? If he wasn't charged but the evidence was brought to the police then clearly the police are part of the conspiracy and they are the real problem since they (unlike church officials) are subject to democratic power.
And don't bother me again. You are not interested in facts or evidence.
I will continue to respond as long as you continue to post things that could ever been seen by a reasonable person as an argument. You can shut me up by increasing the insult percentage to 100%, it appears to be on an exponential curve so it shouldn't take long.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Well you appear to be talking to me, but you also appear to be a bit mad, so I'll just try to answer the only question like phrase:
What the heck is that O in the above 45, XO?
I would assume the O stands for 0, or null, meaning there isn't a second sex chromosome. I would expect muted development of female genitalia.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Why hasn't the RC Church sued the makers of the film "spotlight" that tells the story of paedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church? Andwhy hasn't the Roman Catholic Church sued the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporters and The Boston Globe for writing and publishing false and defamatory accusations?Well one reason could be it's almost impossible to win a defamation lawsuit against a journalist expressing opinions on public interest topics .So how possible do you believe it would be for a child and or his family to go up against a powerful and extremely wealthy institution such as the Roman Catholic Church and win?Your question is complex (the fallacy) because it hides the truth in the details:No it isn't. You have offered possible reasons for the RC church not taking out lawsuits against film makers and investigative journalist. One being the "almost impossibility" of winning. I asked you in response what are the possibilities of a child winning a lawsuit against a powerful and extremely wealthy organisation such as the Roman church?It's almost impossible to win a defamation lawsuit of that nature (in the USA) because of precedent establishing extremely high bars such as actual malice that are almost impossible to prove. It is not almost impossible because lawyers are just too damn expensive.You are still avoiding my question. I asked you if that is the case what are the possibilities of a child winning a lawsuit against a powerful and extremely wealthy organisation such as the Roman church?
The chances of winning a civil suit against the catholic church with the allegation of child sexual abuse is in my opinion significantly higher than the chance of the church winning a defamation suit against a media outlet.
Without evidence of actual malice the defamation suit would be thrown out by a judge. However in the case of sexual abuse allegations a simple majority of jurors could easily be so moved that the mere accusation is sufficient.
Demanding settlements? But that is exactly what has been happening, the 'losses' of the church in that regard form the basis of your evidence of a conspiracy.So do you believe the thousands of accusations against the RC Church are all a conspiracy?The conspiracy I mentioned is the purported conspiracy within the church to hide evidence of sexual abuse."Purported"? But then you are simply and apologetically dismissing the facts presented by priests of the RC Church and the Roman Catholic church itself,in your attempts to absolve the Roman Catholic Church. This is simply you in full denial. There is and was a conspiracy to hide evidence.
and yet whenever you look into it, it reads like "we should have done better", because they think they're responsible for the actions of priests just like you do. But I don't. Failing to act is not the same thing as a coverup. For a coverup to exist there must be evidence available only to the church that was intentionally withheld.
Why is it that all of these actions against the church only seem to occur well after the statute of limitations expire (there shouldn't be such a thing in such serious cases)?You haven't researched this at all have you. The obvious reason appears to be in most cases the CHILDREN don't say a word about their sexual abuse at the hands of these powerful and influential priests until they have grown into adults.I see, then how could there possibly have been an error in church behavior at the time if no allegations existed?Who mentioned an error? I am talking about the hidden sexual abuse of children at the hands of servants of god and the Roman catholic Church.
The OP and myself. Try to keep up.
And are you suggesting that the RC Church with nothing to hide and church members to lose (as they have over this and other scandals) wouldn't want to defend their reputation as a stand up, blameless and moral sinless institution?Well they don't see themselves as blameless, I do. Their greatest mistake in all of this was to give the slightest impression that they were responsible or equipped to handle potential crime "in house" (as the FBI/jury/you put it).That doesn't answer the question.The answer is: Yes, I am suggesting they wouldn't want to defend their reputation as a stand up, blameless and moral sinless institution because that is not how they see themselves.And I am asking you why they wouldn't defend themselves and the Church against these serious and defamatory accusations if they had nothing to hide and were not true.?
No that is not what you asked, full context reproduced above. You asked if I was suggesting something, didn't like my clarifying answer, so I gave you "yes" and now you're trying to rewrite history.
I already gave you two reasons why they might not seek defamation redress, I see no reason to go through that cycle again you may review post #13 "Well one reason could be it's a...."
In the general interest of justice you should refrain from conflating silence with an admission of guilt.
So why the change of heart? Why would he do it now?There was no Church policy on it before, there is now.Why now? The policy had to have been created and put in place for a reason.
People like yourself have mistakenly identified the church as a detective agency, so after decades of being consistently branded with the most deplored label currently in existence it seems that the church leadership have decided to make the obvious explicit.
You asked what behaviour and when
I asked when the admission of the suspect was made and I wanted more specific than "sexual abuse", and you did not post the answer. I've now read the relevant parts of the deposition and the details of the abuse were not mentioned.
I did not go and find it because I had the BoP I was curious. Taken at face value it still seems incredible to me. In the case of Bentley, not only the parents, not only the bishop, but also social workers? All failed to report the matter to police?
I can't imagine why Hubbard would lie, but I also can't imagine why a social worker would call a diocese and not the police.
[Questioner:] But you never reported any of these to police that we have talked about so far, correct?[Hubbard:] No. I didn't report it, but they [police or prosecutor] did report to me and asked me to do something about it.
W.... T.... F....?!
The police... asked a bishop.... to do something about child sexual abuse.
Does anyone here believe that? If you do, then I present to you the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@FLRW
It's not 1.7% Not even close. It has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of a woman to boot.
If a woman is an adult female human, and a female is an egg producing phenotype, then people who have the organs to do both are simultaneously man and woman. That doesn't change the definition and it doesn't give anyone else justification to claim genders their biology does not dictate.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Why hasn't the RC Church sued the makers of the film "spotlight" that tells the story of paedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church? Andwhy hasn't the Roman Catholic Church sued the Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporters and The Boston Globe for writing and publishing false and defamatory accusations?Well one reason could be it's almost impossible to win a defamation lawsuit against a journalist expressing opinions on public interest topics .So how possible do you believe it would be for a child and or his family to go up against a powerful and extremely wealthy institution such as the Roman Catholic Church and win?Your question is complex (the fallacy) because it hides the truth in the details:No it isn't. You have offered possible reasons for the RC church not taking out lawsuits against film makers and investigative journalist. One being the "almost impossibility" of winning. I asked you in response what are the possibilities of a child winning a lawsuit against a powerful and extremely wealthy organisation such as the Roman church?
It's almost impossible to win a defamation lawsuit of that nature (in the USA) because of precedent establishing extremely high bars such as actual malice that are almost impossible to prove. It is not almost impossible because lawyers are just too damn expensive.
What does it mean to "go up against" the church? PR? Civil suits?Stop being so ignorant and disingenuous. Go up against as in - sue a powerful and extremely wealthy organisation such as the Roman Church?
Civil suit is an inappropriate response to criminal activity.
Demanding settlements? But that is exactly what has been happening, the 'losses' of the church in that regard form the basis of your evidence of a conspiracy.So do you believe the thousands of accusations against the RC Church are all a conspiracy?
The conspiracy I mentioned is the purported conspiracy within the church to hide evidence of sexual abuse.
That is not the real issue. The real issue is that this is an extremely criminal matter perpetrated not by "the church" but by specific persons.They represent the church and god.
So god is part of the coverup now? Well that makes more sense than the church, at least god would certainly have known and certainly could have informed the police or you know repair the priest.
Why is it that all of these actions against the church only seem to occur well after the statute of limitations expire (there shouldn't be such a thing in such serious cases)?You haven't researched this at all have you. The obvious reason appears to be in most cases the CHILDREN don't say a word about their sexual abuse at the hands of these powerful and influential priests until they have grown into adults.
I see, then how could there possibly have been an error in church behavior at the time if no allegations existed?
And are you suggesting that the RC Church with nothing to hide and church members to lose (as they have over this and other scandals) wouldn't want to defend their reputation as a stand up, blameless and moral sinless institution?Well they don't see themselves as blameless, I do. Their greatest mistake in all of this was to give the slightest impression that they were responsible or equipped to handle potential crime "in house" (as the FBI/jury/you put it).That doesn't answer the question.
The answer is: Yes, I am suggesting they wouldn't want to defend their reputation as a stand up, blameless and moral sinless institution because that is not how they see themselves.
So why the change of heart? Why would he do it now?
There was no Church policy on it before, there is now.
The article says:[DailyMail] One, David Bentley, admitted to Hubbard that he had engaged in the behavior alleged. Former Bishop of Albany admits covering-up for ELEVEN 'pedophile' priests | Daily Mail OnlineWhen? What behavior?You cannot help yourself can you? Let me break it down for you.
When was the purported admission, not when was the purported deposition.
And we do have the deposition transcript.
Ok post it
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
In your post #5 to me, you seem to be coming to the defense of Catholicism relating to their buggering pedophile priests. So, the obvious question has to be asked, are you a Hell bound Cathylick? SCARED to answer this question?
The question is irrelevant as the answer can only be used for a poisoning the well fallacy.
YOUR QUOTE OF DESPAIR: “If there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of this, that would be a conspiracy to obstruct justice and is a crime almost everywhere (not always called that). Perhaps you should report it.”Duh! The RCC is like its own nation with its own rules
It is not its own nation outside of the Vatican. Maybe people should stop spreading rumors like that and more people would report crimes to the police rather than the church.
furthermore, do you deny that Catholic priests were buggering innocent children? Yes or no?
No, it inevitably happened to some degree. Just like it is inevitable that Amazon employees or Disney employees buggered innocent children at some point.
As for me reporting it is laughable because I am just the messenger.
You're saying your not the mandated reporter huh?
Conversely, and in the same vein, why aren’t you reporting it? GET IT?”
Because I am not in the possession of any evidence which could be relevant to an investigation, nor am I acting like I am. You on the other hand seem completely comfortable implying that the Pope is two seconds away from buggering children.
Listen up, Google about how survivors and experts who work in the field of child sex abuse will tell you there are many reasons why it’s difficult for some to report Cathylick priest sex abuse. Denial, fear and shame, AND jeopardizing your church association, are just a few of the reasons.
Aside from the jeopardizing association that is par for the course in abuse allegations. So the contention is that the church will seek retribution against someone if they go to the police? Any evidence of this? Mind you it would be "the church" not just a small conspiracy of one or two people in a parish.
Now, for your homework to not embarrass yourself any further upon this topic
I get the impression shaming others is a tool you reach for quite often but it will be totally useless against me I assure you.
If you are an attorney, you are LOUSY at your job in not reading about the hell bound RATzinger upon this topic FIRST
I had a good laugh when I imagined those words being used by a prosecutor. 'Objection your honour the prosecution doesn't know for a fact my client is hellbound.'
As for your list of people complaining, that only proves this is a widely held belief; not that it is well founded.
ADreamOfLiberty, now wipe the proverbial egg from your face in now knowing “what you think you knew, YOU DIDN’T!” If you continue in this vein, Jesus and I will Bible Slap you Silly®️
Oh boy, a bible slap, wow are you role playing?
“John Paul, NO, not here, we’ll bring him to your room later tonight!”
John Paul aswell as Ratzinger, <sarcasm>no this isn't a witch hunt at all</sarcasm>
Created: