Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New catholic scandal
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 31 of 75 (647524)
01-10-2012 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by caffeine
01-10-2012 7:06 AM


Re: Abhorrent, but not incitement
The argument "it's her own fault for wearing a short skirt" is not the same as saying that wearing a short skirt gives a man "absolute licence to abuse her body without restrictions". That's the exact words that it is claimed the archbishop used. It's the phrase "absolute licence" that I see as the problem.
Can I point out that the short skirt argument, whichever way you slice it, isn't acceptable either, just incase someone thinks I'm alright with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by caffeine, posted 01-10-2012 7:06 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by caffeine, posted 01-10-2012 8:17 AM Trixie has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 32 of 75 (647533)
01-10-2012 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Trixie
01-10-2012 6:31 AM


Have they learned nothing from the various child abuse scandals?
The RCC has adroitly side-stepped any liability in the past by claiming that all of their priests are actually independant contractors and that the church itself is not responsible for their misdeeds.
One of my favourite quotes from the RCC...
quote:
Lawyers representing the Catholic Church also testified that the church "is not an entity capable of being sued."
Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Trixie, posted 01-10-2012 6:31 AM Trixie has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 33 of 75 (647535)
01-10-2012 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Trixie
01-10-2012 7:22 AM


Re: Abhorrent, but not incitement
The argument "it's her own fault for wearing a short skirt" is not the same as saying that wearing a short skirt gives a man "absolute licence to abuse her body without restrictions". That's the exact words that it is claimed the archbishop used. It's the phrase "absolute licence" that I see as the problem.
I agree it's not a good analogy, but I'm having difficulty coming up with one. The point is that this can't be taken as incitement. Even if the arch-bishop does mean that it's okay to rape women (which I doubt), this in itself isn't a crime (I'm talking British law, anyway, I can't speak for every country in the world).
"Raping women is okay" - the expression of an opinion, albeit a horrific one. Not illegal.
"Go and rape women" - exhortation to commit a crime. This is illegal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Trixie, posted 01-10-2012 7:22 AM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2012 11:32 AM caffeine has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 75 (647568)
01-10-2012 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Parasomnium
01-08-2012 9:33 AM


Has anyone seen this already?
No.
A Spanish cleric says it's OK for women who have had an abortion to be raped. Here is the link.
Are you saying that this:
quote:
'a woman who has an abortion gives a man absolute licence to abuse her body without restrictions because she has committed a sin as if she had a right to do so'.
... is saying that its OK for women who have had an abortion to be raped?
While its a pretty fucked-up thing to say, it doesn't say to me that its OK for the woman to be raped.
I think what he was trying to say was: because she's acting as if she has a right to abuse her body without restriction, then she's allowing for others to do the same (not that I agree with that statement). But that doesn't mean that others doing that something would be OK. Rape would still be wrong, but since she's done something, that he feels is, so terrible, then she'd have no business complaining about something else, that he feels is, not so terrible. But I think he was trying to express how bad he thought abortion was, not how not-bad he thought rape was.
That being said, it was a bad thing to say and he should retract it and appologize. The phrase "gives a man absolute licence to abuse her body without restrictions" certainly sounds like rape, and he does seem to be legitimizing it a bit. I think he probably could have phrased it better, or maybe there's a lot lost in translation.
However, if he does think that its OK to rape women who've had an abortion, then he needs to be fired.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Parasomnium, posted 01-08-2012 9:33 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by saab93f, posted 01-10-2012 11:31 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 38 by Tangle, posted 01-10-2012 11:44 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(2)
Message 35 of 75 (647573)
01-10-2012 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2012 11:06 AM


Hi CS!
While I kinda understand what you are saying I am baffled by the need to apologize on that monsters behalf or even to try and justify his train of thought.
He should quit his "job" and move to a cave where he cannot do harm to anyone but himself. Horrid piece of filth - a real shame to all us men. I have zero symathy for a scum like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2012 11:06 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2012 11:37 AM saab93f has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 75 (647574)
01-10-2012 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by caffeine
01-10-2012 8:17 AM


Re: Abhorrent, but not incitement
"Go and rape women" - exhortation to commit a crime. This is illegal.
I think its a pretty big stretch to make this a statment that the men in the congregation should go out and rape the woman who have had abbortions.
I agree it's not a good analogy, but I'm having difficulty coming up with one.
How about this:
'a woman who drives 30 mph over the speed limit gives a man absolute licence to cut her off in traffic without restrictions because she has committed a sin as if she had a right to do so'.
Meh, I dunno.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by caffeine, posted 01-10-2012 8:17 AM caffeine has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 75 (647576)
01-10-2012 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by saab93f
01-10-2012 11:31 AM


While I kinda understand what you are saying I am baffled by the need to apologize on that monsters behalf or even to try and justify his train of thought.
Yeah, I wasn't going to say anything at all because anything besides "OMG! THIS FUCKER IS SOOO TERRIBLE!" would be responded to with detest. Upon submission, I fully expected to have people tell me that I'm a bad person for not jumping on the bandwagon and hating on this guy (not that you've done this).
But then I remembered that it doesn't really matter. I don't feel any need to apologize for this guy. I just don't think that what people think he was saying was what he was actually saying.
Clarity for clarity's sake. That is all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by saab93f, posted 01-10-2012 11:31 AM saab93f has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 38 of 75 (647577)
01-10-2012 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2012 11:06 AM


SC writes:
That being said, it was a bad thing to say and he should retract it and appologize.
Not good enough really is it?
This wasn't an off the cuff remark in the pub, it was the Archbishop's Christmas message to his congregation. That's normally something you think about in advance and even write down. He obviously means what he says. If the Vatican doesn't fire him, they're once again saying that they are not going to conform to the normal rules of decent society.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2012 11:06 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2012 12:02 PM Tangle has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 75 (647579)
01-10-2012 11:56 AM


Six Jeers & Zero Responses. Go Figure
I see Message 6 netted six jeers and zero responses. What does that tell us? It is indicative that the jeers were biased and unwarranted. It is indicative that the message was irrefutable.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by DrJones*, posted 01-10-2012 12:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 43 by Tangle, posted 01-10-2012 12:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 44 by Theodoric, posted 01-10-2012 12:16 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 46 by Panda, posted 01-10-2012 12:59 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 47 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-10-2012 1:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 01-10-2012 1:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 51 by Trixie, posted 01-10-2012 2:08 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 57 by nwr, posted 01-10-2012 7:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 75 (647580)
01-10-2012 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
01-08-2012 9:10 PM


Re: So What's New With The RCC?
One jeer and one reply, just to make Buz's previous message as inaccurate as possible. It certainly couldn't get any stupider.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 01-08-2012 9:10 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


(4)
Message 41 of 75 (647581)
01-10-2012 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
01-10-2012 11:56 AM


Re: Six Jeers & Zero Responses. Go Figure
Or: it is indicative that the members thought that a jeer was the most response your message deserved.

God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2012 11:56 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 75 (647583)
01-10-2012 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tangle
01-10-2012 11:44 AM


SC writes:
That being said, it was a bad thing to say and he should retract it and appologize.
Not good enough really is it?
Huh?
This wasn't an off the cuff remark in the pub, it was the Archbishop's Christmas message to his congregation. That's normally something you think about in advance and even write down. He obviously means what he says.
Sure, but did he mean what people are interpreting him as saying? Did he mean what he was translated as saying?
If the Vatican doesn't fire him, they're once again saying that they are not going to conform to the normal rules of decent society.
I could think up other reasons... but when have you ever gotten the sense from the Vatican that they think they should comform to the normal rules of decent society?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tangle, posted 01-10-2012 11:44 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tangle, posted 01-10-2012 12:18 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 52 by frako, posted 01-10-2012 4:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 43 of 75 (647584)
01-10-2012 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
01-10-2012 11:56 AM


Re: Six Jeers & Zero Responses. Go Figure
I didn't bother to reply or jeer but now that you've brought my attention to it again I see that it's well worth a jeer.
(You provide a link to an alleged convent brothel which turned out to actually be an priest talking about legalising prostitution - the jeer was for my disappointment.)

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2012 11:56 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 44 of 75 (647585)
01-10-2012 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
01-10-2012 11:56 AM


Re: Six Jeers & Zero Responses. Go Figure
I see Message 6 netted six jeers and zero responses. What does that tell us? It is indicative that the jeers were biased and unwarranted. It is indicative that the message was irrefutable.
Umm, no.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2012 11:56 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 45 of 75 (647586)
01-10-2012 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2012 12:02 PM


CS writes:
Sure, but did he mean what people are interpreting him as saying? Did he mean what he was translated as saying?
No, of course not. But even though what he said was deliberately misinterpreted by the headline, what he actually DID say was bad enough to get him fired from any normal organisation.
..... but when have you ever gotten the sense from the Vatican that they think they should comform to the normal rules of decent society?
Never. It's just disapointing to have it confirmed over and over.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2012 12:02 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024