Beatsong wrote:Ooh look, there's nobody here to argue the other side.

Great. We can all just congratulate each other on being right instead.

[/thread]





[/forum]

Feel free to argue for the other side.

Beatsong wrote:
Oh look there is nobody here to argue the other side

We can all just congratulate each other on being right instead

No thanks I would rather have more here who are not part of the status quo

This is the problem with tribalism : everyone takes sides and assumes superiority

But that is a false assumption and not in the spirit of what a rational site should be like

I treat all members the same whether they think like me or not so why cannot others do this too

Beatsong wrote:Ooh look, there's nobody here to argue the other side.

Great. We can all just congratulate each other on being right instead.

[/thread]

Are you suggesting there is an "other side" on the issue of throwing dead babies into a septic tank?

That there is an "other side" on the way the Catholic Church, divinely appointed upholder of morals, has used various methods and strategies to distance itself from the enormous consequences - to itself and to the victims - of the abuse perpetrated, on and in property it owned, by its agents, many of whom it shielded and supported?

That "being right" on these issues is just a redundant form of 'self-congratulation'? To the point that we should [/thread]?

I dunno... I'm not convinced the concept of 'fair and balanced', to the extent of having someone argue "the other side" applies to this issue.


.

Shrunk wrote:

Greyman wrote: How can you tell the priest was off-duty, the justices asked?

“Well,” replied the diocese lawyer, “you can determine a priest is not on duty when he is [abusing] a child, for example. … A priest abusing a child is absolutely contrary to the pursuit of his master’s business, to the work of a diocese."

They didn't say that, did they? Unbefuckinglievable.

Yep his brain's duty is to god, obviously the brain and the dick can't engage at the same time.

I recently say the movie Philomena. It doesn't seem to have captured how bad things
really were.

Nebogipfel wrote:

Beatsong wrote:Ooh look, there's nobody here to argue the other side.

Great. We can all just congratulate each other on being right instead.

[/thread]





[/forum]

Feel free to argue for the other side.

No thanks. I don't want to be banned.

lyingcheat wrote:

Beatsong wrote:Ooh look, there's nobody here to argue the other side.

Great. We can all just congratulate each other on being right instead.

[/thread]

Are you suggesting there is an "other side" on the issue of throwing dead babies into a septic tank?

Sure. The obvious contradiction between the usual atheist insistence that in lieu of any spirit or life after death, a dead body is just a mass of impersonal matter, and the sudden strange insistence on it getting the right kind of funeral and burial befitting the person who doesn't exist any more, could be a start.

But discussing that might upset people, and then I'd be banned. So I'd better stop.

Beatsong wrote:

lyingcheat wrote:

Beatsong wrote:Ooh look, there's nobody here to argue the other side.

Great. We can all just congratulate each other on being right instead.

[/thread]

Are you suggesting there is an "other side" on the issue of throwing dead babies into a septic tank?

Sure. The obvious contradiction between the usual atheist insistence that in lieu of any spirit or life after death, a dead body is just a mass of impersonal matter, and the sudden strange insistence on it getting the right kind of funeral and burial befitting the person who doesn't exist any more, could be a start.

But discussing that might upset people, and then I'd be banned. So I'd better stop.

How about the obvious contradiction between on the one hand, an organisation which believes in the sanctity of life, that all human beings are unique creations of a loving God, which opposes abortion and allowing people control over the end of their life; and on the other hand, members of that organisation who neglected children to death and then dumped them in a septic tank?

Beatsong wrote:The obvious contradiction between the usual atheist insistence that in lieu of any spirit or life after death, a dead body is just a mass of impersonal matter, and the sudden strange insistence on it getting the right kind of funeral and burial befitting the person who doesn't exist any more, could be a start.

It isn't about what happened to the bodies of those children, Beatsong. Although having your kid chucked into a septic tank would be pretty horrendous, it isn't even about that. And where on earth is this 'sudden strange insistence on it getting the right kind of funeral and burial befitting the person who doesn't exist any more'? I haven't seen anyone say anything about that.

Not even on the relevant thread, I might add. You seem to be crawling out onto a limb which is rapidly turning into a twig.

It's about how and why an organisation which claims to be so holy could allow its followers to behave towards those mothers and children the way it did, behaviour which resulted in untold misery for the mothers and ultimately in untimely death for far more of the children (and probably for a number of the mothers too) than would have otherwise died, and how that organisation can then try to deny any responsibility or culpability by saying that those organisations are not the church itself therefore they are not responsible for what their people did. That is what Mick was arguing, and I'm pretty sure you aren't going to go ahead and tell us you agree with what he said?

Nebogipfel wrote:How about the obvious contradiction between on the one hand, an organisation which believes in the sanctity of life, that all human beings are unique creations of a loving God, which opposes abortion and allowing people control over the end of their life; and on the other hand, members of that organisation who neglected children to death and then dumped them in a septic tank?

Indeed.

What amazes me, is now that Mick has been ousted and cannot offend anyone any more, you all still want to talk about it and get offended.

jamest wrote:What amazes me, is now that Mick has been ousted and cannot offend anyone any more, you all still want to talk about it and get offended.

Offended? Gobsmacked, more like.

Oh, and I would have been quite happy for this thread to just go dormant, but I felt I couldn't just let Beatsong be wrong without pointing it out.

We kinda have this thing going, if you know what I mean.

jamest wrote:What amazes me, is now that Mick has been ousted and cannot offend anyone any more, you all still want to talk about it and get offended.

Someone could be dead but we still might wish to debate or comment on the things they said or stood for.

John Platko wrote:I recently say the movie Philomena. It doesn't seem to have captured how bad things
really were.

I recommend, if you can find them, the brave films Songs for a Raggy Boy and The Magdalene Sisters, which actually do brutally depict shocking scenes of child abuse, rape and enslavement in Church run institutions in Ireland.

As for the main topic, and as we're talking about Ireland, I'm reminded of a response once given by an IRA member to the question of what degree does the Sinn Fein leadership know and have responsibility for IRA activity at levels and branches, given that IRA had faced charges of crimes and atrocities that Sinn Fein had publicly tried to legally disassociate itself from. His answer was to think of the biblical verse Matthew 10:29, "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father's care", or in other words, the Sinn Fein leaders are God, so they know and would want to know and would be disappointed if they didn't know everything that happens and had control over it. Likewise in Ireland, the Catholic Church was God, and to deny that it didn't have any responsibility for what happened is fantasy, converging upon insanity, with attempts to establish legal and structural responsibility something of an academic task.

Emmeline wrote:

jamest wrote:What amazes me, is now that Mick has been ousted and cannot offend anyone any more, you all still want to talk about it and get offended.

Someone could be dead but we still might wish to debate or comment on the things they said or stood for.

Yes, but I thought that the point of having Mick ejected was so that you all didn't have to read about his views and become emotional any more? By continuing with these issues you've all just contradicted yourselves.

jamest wrote:

Emmeline wrote:

jamest wrote:What amazes me, is now that Mick has been ousted and cannot offend anyone any more, you all still want to talk about it and get offended.

Someone could be dead but we still might wish to debate or comment on the things they said or stood for.

Yes, but I thought that the point of having Mick ejected was so that you all didn't have to read about his views and become emotional any more? By continuing with these issues you've all just contradicted yourselves.

It wasn't his views it was his behaviour - how many fucking times does this have to be repeated?

Paul wrote:

jamest wrote:

Emmeline wrote:

jamest wrote:What amazes me, is now that Mick has been ousted and cannot offend anyone any more, you all still want to talk about it and get offended.

Someone could be dead but we still might wish to debate or comment on the things they said or stood for.

Yes, but I thought that the point of having Mick ejected was so that you all didn't have to read about his views and become emotional any more? By continuing with these issues you've all just contradicted yourselves.

It wasn't his views it was his behaviour - how many fucking times does this have to be repeated?

What fucking behaviour? I don't remember Mick swearing or calling anyone a cunt or getting emotional. He mostly delivered his views and tried his utmost to debate them rationally.

Nebogipfel wrote:

Beatsong wrote:

lyingcheat wrote:Are you suggesting there is an "other side" on the issue of throwing dead babies into a septic tank?

Sure. The obvious contradiction between the usual atheist insistence that in lieu of any spirit or life after death, a dead body is just a mass of impersonal matter, and the sudden strange insistence on it getting the right kind of funeral and burial befitting the person who doesn't exist any more, could be a start.

But discussing that might upset people, and then I'd be banned. So I'd better stop.

How about the obvious contradiction between on the one hand, an organisation which believes in the sanctity of life, that all human beings are unique creations of a loving God, which opposes abortion and allowing people control over the end of their life; and on the other hand, members of that organisation who neglected children to death and then dumped them in a septic tank?

Yep, that's an interesting aspect too.

If only there were someone here with more personal experience of that organisation, who could give some insight into the mentality behind such a contradiction, from the organisation's POV.

jamest wrote:

Emmeline wrote:

jamest wrote:What amazes me, is now that Mick has been ousted and cannot offend anyone any more, you all still want to talk about it and get offended.

Someone could be dead but we still might wish to debate or comment on the things they said or stood for.

Yes, but I thought that the point of having Mick ejected was so that you all didn't have to read about his views and become emotional any more? By continuing with these issues you've all just contradicted yourselves.

Hang on just a minute there, James.

Having Mick ejected??

A couple of members swore at him and this evolves in your mind into 'having him ejected'? I don't know what planet you are on but I don't think it's the same one that I inhabit.

No, you really aren't getting the point, are you.

And anyway, this more properly belongs in one of the threads about his banning, not here.

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Beatsong wrote:The obvious contradiction between the usual atheist insistence that in lieu of any spirit or life after death, a dead body is just a mass of impersonal matter, and the sudden strange insistence on it getting the right kind of funeral and burial befitting the person who doesn't exist any more, could be a start.

It isn't about what happened to the bodies of those children, Beatsong. Although having your kid chucked into a septic tank would be pretty horrendous, it isn't even about that.

I understand that. If you read my comment here in context, I was replying to this specific question of lyingcheat:

Are you suggesting there is an "other side" on the issue of throwing dead babies into a septic tank?

He was specifically asking about that aspect of it - the fact that the dead bodies were thrown into a septic tank rather than disposed of in a normal, more dignified manner.

It's about how and why an organisation which claims to be so holy could allow its followers to behave towards those mothers and children the way it did, behaviour which resulted in untold misery for the mothers and ultimately in untimely death for far more of the children (and probably for a number of the mothers too) than would have otherwise died, and how that organisation can then try to deny any responsibility or culpability by saying that those organisations are not the church itself therefore they are not responsible for what their people did. That is what Mick was arguing, and I'm pretty sure you aren't going to go ahead and tell us you agree with what he said?

No.

So what do you want to do? Let off steam about how angry it makes you, while others do the same? That's fair enough; it's certainly anger-inducing. Not sure what you want me to add to it though. The issue can either be discussed from all sides or it can't.