User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 146

  1. #101
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    I suspect that only the most dogmatic or simple-minded Catholics are entirely free from the conviction that the church and its institutions currently need to put their own house in order over some of the recent events. They haven't done so yet in my view and have shown themselves reluctant to make the kind of changes that will lay justified criticism to rest, but I believe that actual Catholics themselves are in a better position to decide what form this change ought to take. The use of these issues to target the church, its believers, and its institutions as a whole seems like a mixture of opportunism and prejudice to me.
    I've bolded the final part because I agree with it so much.

    The first part about dogmatic or simple minded I'm not sure about, I just dont know who you are referring to or what you are meaning.

    What changes are you suggesting? I agree that if the RRC is to be reformed then like any other time in its history it will be reformed by RCs themselves and no one else. External pressure or splintering will only delay the process.

    However there is nothing within the articles of faith, traditions or practices of the church which make child abuse likely or acceptable, it has in fact been extreme abberant and deviant of the individuals involved to behave in this manner.

    The cover ups, moving of offenders to other parishes, all the measures that the Church did take to try and deal with these individuals, and there where many but they did not work, where misjudged but aimed at stopping the offending behaviour and equally at avoiding the equation of the RCC and RC faith with offending behaviour which is exactly what has happened presently.

    To be honest, I've said this before and its been given very little real consideration, the acts of abuse which took place had a lot to do with norms and values which where a lot more widespread than the RCC. For instance the power imbalance between adults and children, the reliability of children's grievances, the accountability of adults to children and for child welfare.

  2. #102
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    /disingenuous
    /incorrect

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    From what I recall the guy has a good sense of humour. You interpret me with prejudice and call me on the same. I'm just currently coming at this with the idea that perfect behaviour is unattainable. I can only therefore recommend a thicker skin.... or beer. Beer usually works.
    Have you been imbibing the substance you recommend? I was referring to your novel definition of respect, which seems inconsistent with what most people tend to mean by the term. And it still does.

    Boring. You're trying to use a decision to be in one camp or another as a meal ticket. There's no meal ticket for roleplayers and we're a minority. Quit whining.
    You're not making one iota of sense to me here. Care to explain further? Otherwise at this stage I'm going to have to assume you're trolling/had a reading or writing comprehension fail.

    Yes. The lawyers in priestly robes are arguing some form of diplomatic immunity which is afforded to all leaders of state.
    Whether or not he has, or should have, diplomatic immunity, has nothing do do with whether anyone was saying he should be not subject to scrutiny. You seem to be having trouble with the common meanings of words in this thread, which is not really an aid to intersubjective communication when others are using them quite differently. I'll try to help you by providing a definition of what the word "scrutiny" actually means:

    scru·ti·ny   
    1. a searching examination or investigation; minute inquiry.
    2. surveillance; close and continuous watching or guarding.
    3. a close and searching look.
    Any clearer yet?

    I'm sorry, you're constituent members of that organisation (I'm guessing you are but the public universal you too, yeah you at the back in the hoodie). If you do not take action then are you not complicit?

    Oh and as a note I don't hate religion, I'm agnostic. I think your beliefs are irrelevant and hence I'm not grouping people on which religion they have.
    Could you try to at least be coherent for a change? I actually only see one sentence here that I can read any meaning into it at all. I'd prefer to read a whole statement which makes sense all the way through so I can see whether it's worth the bother of responding to or not.
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  3. #103
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    ^I'd be grateful if you could make an effort to communicate respectfully in my threads. You're really becoming obnoxious and you seem to constantly be trying to incite people. Please change your tone or don't bother to contribute.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  4. #104
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    Have you been imbibing the substance you recommend? I was referring to your novel definition of respect, which seems inconsistent with what most people tend to mean by the term. And it still does.
    What I respect people for, I would respectfully suggest, is my own affair.

    From what I recall of quotes attributed to the man he seems wise and miss guided in equal measure but from a TV appearance I faintly recall I remember a warm smile and a ready sense of humour which struck me as refreshing for a religious leader and deserving of respect.
    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    You're not making one iota of sense to me here. Care to explain further? Otherwise at this stage I'm going to have to assume you're trolling/had a reading or writing comprehension fail.
    The decision to be a member of a religion should not carry any more weight than any other decision of how to spend your free time. If you choose to be religious then that's your choice, why should the country bow down to make way for it? I don't seem to recall a chess club demanding special measures.
    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    Whether or not he has, or should have, diplomatic immunity, has nothing do do with whether anyone was saying he should be not subject to scrutiny. You seem to be having trouble with the common meanings of words in this thread, which is not really an aid to intersubjective communication when others are using them quite differently. I'll try to help you by providing a definition of what the word "scrutiny" actually means:


    Any clearer yet?
    It goes towards the final outcome. If one cannot indight the man then scrutiny will only go so far before it hits the whole "you can't see that, this man is beyond your laws".

    Thank you for pointing out a possible pitfall for me though. Most neighbourly.
    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    Could you try to at least be coherent for a change? I actually only see one sentence here that I can read any meaning into it at all. I'd prefer to read a whole statement which makes sense all the way through so I can see whether it's worth the bother of responding to or not.
    You mean what do I mean in context? Oooo that could take hours to explain. I was hoping to just leave it in a miasma and let the connotations be revealed as you consider it.

    First statement - Were you Roman Catholic, if you're not pressing your points of contact (like local church and such) to spread pressure upwards to reveal what has and has not gone on behind closed doors in relation to the offences mentioned then are you not in part complicit with those offences? After all if the entirety of the faith shrug and don't speak up then there's no internal impetous to do anything and, as you rightly pointed out, external pressure has less effect.

    As to the second statement, I'm picking up that you're feeling picked upon perhaps because you are catholic or maybe a sympathiser. I'm simply saying that such has no effect on what I'm saying positively or negatively. I'm simply stating what I'm thinking. If that offends you then say as much rather than using vitriol to excise your negativity.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  5. #105
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    ^I'd be grateful if you could make an effort to communicate respectfully in my threads. You're really becoming obnoxious and you seem to constantly be trying to incite people. Please change your tone or don't bother to contribute.
    Blue, I'll be happy to bring in a moderator -one in particular- whom I had a conversation with about people just like you, who think they own a thread. This is not your thread. The fact that you would tell any member to "communicate respectfully," when you have a long history of insulting, provoking, and attacking members is laughable.

    Once a thread has begun, it is public. No member "owns" it, and has no right to be calling it "my thread." If you want some form of control, I suggest you start a blog. If you think a member is breaking a rule, let a mod know. Breaking forum rules is what you did yesterday, when you told a member to "fuck off out of the thread." Clearly, you are not a person who should be giving speeches on respectful communication.

  6. #106
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Perhaps I misunderstood Peguy's remarks about how Magic was wrong in making distinctions between the current pope and former popes, because they're all in the succession of popes following Peter.
    There are no doubt differences between the popes. The point is you can't seperate this current pope from his office as head of the Papacy, which as an institution has done much in that particular context(patron of the arts) and which as the current pope he's obliged to maintain and continue the legacy of the work of his predecessors - whether as patrons of the arts and/or especially as the defender of the faith.

  7. #107
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Well I guess the Pope has released his own album of classical music:
    Pope rock: Benedict sings on album - World news - Europe - The Vatican - msnbc.com

    Even more so, he's written plenty of essays and works concerning philosophy of music, especially in regards to liturgical music.

    Here's just one example of his work as patron of the arts:
    ZENIT - Benedict XVI Praises the Value of Music

    And another commentary on this topic, in regards to the Pope's love of Mozart:
    Pope Benedict XVI, Mozart and the Quest of Beauty

    So again the argument that Benedict is on weak grounds concerning musical influence is rather silly.

  8. #108
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post

    And what is this post geared to provoke? Me? That seems to be your sole purpose in trolling around after me and insulting me in rep, VM and PM. Have you got a crush on me or something?
    Not interested, dude. Quit it or I'll report you for harassment.



    That "asexual amoeba" thing was purely in jest. Other than that, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you want to resolve this, send me a PM.

    EDIT: You had the option of reporting me for harassment all this time, and yet you chose to wait and bring the issue out into the public arena? Until now, I had no idea you even thought I insulted you. I was concerned, however, that you might take it offensively. Anyway, this thread isn't a sandbox for children to settle their playground disputes just because you started it.

    No, that comment wasn't meant to provoke you. It was an observation about:

    1) The tone of the original post. (You seem to have disregarded at least one fact. The Pope doesn't deny the holocaust, he just defended a bishop who did if I'm not mistaken. I figured that in spite of the fact that you probably knew this, you skewed the facts to shed a negative light on the Pope.)
    2) Patterns of political discussions that involve religion.

  9. #109
    Reason vs Being ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Mine
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,770

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    ^I'd be grateful if you could make an effort to communicate respectfully in my threads. You're really becoming obnoxious and you seem to constantly be trying to incite people. Please change your tone or don't bother to contribute.
    Good, I see you got bored with playing the dismissive comment game.

    First, you don't have a monopoly on who gets to post in the thread and what tone they choose to adopt. You can't claim ownership of a public thread just because you started it.

    Second,I'm actually trying to contribute in a constructive manner and adhere to what I consider to be reasonable standards of civilised discourse, which hopefully are in line with forum rules. If you don't like the fact that in the process of doing so I'm also expressing opinions you dislike, about either the topic or the quality of certain other people's posting, then please take issue with the content of what I'm actually saying rather than objecting to my participation and launching into unsubstantiated personal attacks. I'm certainly not going to leave the thread just because you choose to get angry with me.

    Xander appears to have put much more effort into his post this time round, which I doubt he would have done if I hadn't called him out on it, and has also admitted to taking a trollish approach by playing silly mind games with people, which shows that I was perfectly justified. I'm not going to make any apologies for trying to push someone into contributing more constructively if they're not doing so. There's quite enough flaming going on in these debates about religion already.

    Third, you just make yourself look hypocritcal by lecturing people about deliberately inciting others. I try to avoid being abrasive with people where at all possible. How about yourself?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    What I respect people for, I would respectfully suggest, is my own affair.
    Indeed. That goes for me as well. And one of the things I am more likely to respect people for is taking the effort to express themselves in a mature manner.

    From what I recall of quotes attributed to the man he seems wise and miss guided in equal measure but from a TV appearance I faintly recall I remember a warm smile and a ready sense of humour which struck me as refreshing for a religious leader and deserving of respect.
    So you mean something like - he seemed worthy of respect because he appears to have positive personal qualites, such as the ability and inclination to relate to others? Fair enough point. I do think, however, that for many believers faith-based or moral reasons, along with the symbolic value of what his position represents, may be a more important factor.

    The decision to be a member of a religion should not carry any more weight than any other decision of how to spend your free time. If you choose to be religious then that's your choice, why should the country bow down to make way for it? I don't seem to recall a chess club demanding special measures.
    Chess isn't a religion, no-one is expecting anyone who doesn't wish to to "bow down" to him as far as I'm aware, and your "shoulds" about the relative merits of religion and pastimes do not carry any more weight than anyone else's. If you do not appreciate that for believers religion is a central tenet of their life experience (for many the single most important factor in their existence), the failure lies in your imagination and ability to appreciate the perspectives of others where they may differ from your own, not in them for prioritising as they do.

    It goes towards the final outcome. If one cannot indight the man then scrutiny will only go so far before it hits the whole "you can't see that, this man is beyond your laws".
    Well, the process of questioning the validity or morality of his actions is a bit different to saying that because those questions can be asked (and that in some people's minds he can be found wanting) he represents a legitimate target for the removal of the priviliged status conferred by diplomatic immunity, as you appear to be saying. It would be both unnecessarily divisive and incredibly politically naive, which is why it isn't going to happen.

    You mean what do I mean in context? Oooo that could take hours to explain. I was hoping to just leave it in a miasma and let the connotations be revealed as you consider it.
    Please do, if you expect your views to be understood in the first place and agknowledged as valid (whether people actually agree with you is a different matter). You admit here that you were intentionally expressing yourself as you were in order to provoke a response from others, not to explain your own views. It really shouldn't need me to explain that this can be construed as trolling.

    First statement - Were you Roman Catholic, if you're not pressing your points of contact (like local church and such) to spread pressure upwards to reveal what has and has not gone on behind closed doors in relation to the offences mentioned then are you not in part complicit with those offences? After all if the entirety of the faith shrug and don't speak up then there's no internal impetous to do anything and, as you rightly pointed out, external pressure has less effect.
    Well, my impression is that a lot of people are speaking up and have been unhappy with it - but that there's not much impetus for truly decisive change at the top. This is a shame, and is also making them look bad, particularly from an external perspective, but also within the community itself. There is pressure, and there's a lot they need to do to change so that these abuses can't happen again - so far as I can see it's an ongoing process which it's currently difficult to gain perspective on. I do think it's important to remember though that this (I presume you're talking about the child abuse scandals etc) is neither a uniquely Catholic issue or one that represents what the faith means to the majority of believers.

    That many may not be happy with the current situation is not a reason for them rejecting the faith in droves or expending the totality of their involvment petitioning their local institutions and representatives. Even within the faith itself it's not necessarily the most pressing issue in the minds of most believers. So far as I can see it's a problematic issue within the organisation of the church and for its image, but not one that takes over the minds of all Catholics to the extent that it distracts them from the positive experiences of their faith, or is even the primary focus of criticism within the church itself (which has a vast number of other issues which are a source of internal contention). And I don't think it's up to anyone else to make what appears to be a rather superficial moral judgment about how Catholics should prioritise their lives according to one's own standards, or be found wanting.

    As to the second statement, I'm picking up that you're feeling picked upon perhaps because you are catholic or maybe a sympathiser. I'm simply saying that such has no effect on what I'm saying positively or negatively. I'm simply stating what I'm thinking. If that offends you then say as much rather than using vitriol to excise your negativity.
    Good, you've at least made some more effort to explain yourself properly this time round. I prefer not to be left guessing at what someone's actually trying to mean. Whether I am or am not Catholic, or a "sympathiser", whatever that is, is irrelevant to whether you're making the effort to express yourself properly. Playing mind games with people is not half so clever as you seem to think, and it's pretty transparent, so don't waste my time and yours by trying to make this about my response rather than your actions.

    You've already admitted that you were being intentionally ambigious in order to provoke responses from others - ie trolling. You don't troll, I don't have to say anything negative about how you express yourself. How about that? Whether I have anything critical to say about the argument in itself - ie what you express, is another matter. But I would have hoped that you appreciate that online debates will naturally lead to disagreement, sometimes heated. End of story as far as I'm concerned.
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  10. #110
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ragashree View Post
    First, you don't have a monopoly on who gets to post in the thread and what tone they choose to adopt. You can't claim ownership of a public thread just because you started it.
    I respectfully asked you to modify your tone, that's all.
    Second,I'm actually trying to contribute in a constructive manner and adhere to what I consider to be reasonable standards of civilised discourse,
    Then your standards leave much to be desired. In that one post alone (to Xander) there were four separate personal insults/attacks. It cheapens both you and your argument when you resort to those tactics.

    Third, you just make yourself look hypocritcal by lecturing people about deliberately inciting others. I try to avoid being abrasive with people where at all possible. How about yourself?
    Then you fail. Because you are being abrasive here, and without provocation, from what I can see. Feel free to call me on any unprovoked attacks of my own as you see fit, but don't use that as a defense. It's lame.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

Similar Threads

  1. Is there anything similar to the military that pays for school?
    By The Wailing Specter in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 05-28-2017, 01:10 PM
  2. What Are The Odds of Being Able to Pay for a Private Grad School?
    By Thalassa in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-23-2012, 05:41 PM
  3. Paying the Bills for the Dead
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-05-2009, 11:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO