• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is how you avoid accepting responsibility.

tsig said:
You think some or all of them are lying?
Click to expand...

I have no idea--I doubt you do either. I do know some folks are prone to exaggerate when they have the chance at financial gain. I haven't seen the Diocese's response to the claims, just the biased opinions of a handful of articles critical of their response. From what I did read, it sounds like it's a bankruptcy, so it's not like they're 'hoarding the money for themselves' or whatever the claim is. They're paying off creditors, one of which is the cemeteries etc. The court also apparently held that they did not know of the abuse until after it occurred, so apparently it's not a case of concealing the abuse. I still would agree that if it took place under their watch, they should pay up, and the victims do deserve it first--however, I do not think it is as cut-n-dry, black-n-white, good-vs-evil as the knee-jerk responses indicate here. To me, as a skeptic, it sounds more like a jump-on-the-bandwagon thing where the Catholic Church is pure evil and that's the end of the story.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
The accusers, for the most part, came forward before the Church agreed to pay anything.
Click to expand...

Attorneys for clergy sexual abuse victims say Dolan created the fund to hide money from their clients. The archdiocese filed for bankruptcy in 2011.

Hundreds of victims have since filed claims against the archdiocese.

That implies to me that victims came afterwards--but maybe this quote was poorly worded, I dunno.
 
Nonpareil said:
The normative nature of morality does not mean it is worthless, and it does not make the above post any less pretentious, silly, and rather disgusting.

There is a time and place for trying to score Skeptic Points. Making light of a group of rapists that have targeted children is not that time.
Click to expand...

Okay, you decide when it is appropriate to ask for the definition of words, right? I will try to be nice, but here it is.

We are skeptics! We try to be precise and stay with the facts. It is not a fact, that other people can be vile and evil. Yet we don't call out our fellow atheists and skeptics, right? They are in our group, right? We only call out the theists and so on.

That was the point, Dinwar, in part was trying to make in another thread. You don't write off other people simply because you don't accept their thinking. If you do so, you are setting an example for them to follow. The rule is this: Call them evil, vile and so on and the problem is solved. Further you don't have to try to understand them, because they are delusional, because they don't have evidence for their claims.

BTW neither has someone claiming other people are evil and vile. So by the rule of delusional, that person is delusional.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Okay, you decide when it is appropriate to ask for the definition of words, right? I will try to be nice, but here it is.

We are skeptics! We try to be precise and stay with the facts. It is not a fact, that other people can be vile and evil. Yet we don't call out our fellow atheists and skeptics, right? They are in our group, right? We only call out the theists and so on.

That was the point, Dinwar, in part was trying to make in another thread. You don't write off other people simply because you don't accept their thinking. If you do so, you are setting an example for them to follow. The rule is this: Call them evil, vile and so on and the problem is solved. Further you don't have to try to understand them, because they are delusional, because they don't have evidence for their claims.

BTW neither has someone claiming other people are evil and vile. So by the rule of delusional, that person is delusional.
Click to expand...

Skeptics aren't navel-gazing hair-splitters who sit around defining words out of useful existence either- "there is no right, there is no wrong, there is only the mind, ommmmmmmmm." These people aren't wrong because they're Christians, they're wrong because they're either raping children or trying to avoid the consequences of that wrong for their club that allowed it.

Get over yourself already.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
I don't know how it is relevant for the OP. You brought up stupid people. So I asked for evidence. How do you know that people are stupid?

If you want to stay within the OP, they are justing trying any legal avenue open to them. How is that stupid?
Click to expand...

Are you JAQing off because you dislike that this is about christian ? Sorry to ask because it looks like it. None of your question has really relevance to the op.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
No, it is not laudable, but its the rule of law. If they can get away with that, then that is how the system works.
Click to expand...

Getting away with the rules of law is what i expect CEO and politician do on a regular basis. We are talking about people which pretend to have a moral link to god and dictate/direct people moral choice. That makes "getting away" a much much less tenable proposition.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
The Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee says paying victims of sexual assault is a violation of its religious freedom.

Continues...
Click to expand...

stanfr said:
I have no idea--I doubt you do either. I do know some folks are prone to exaggerate when they have the chance at financial gain. I haven't seen the Diocese's response to the claims, just the biased opinions of a handful of articles critical of their response. From what I did read, it sounds like it's a bankruptcy, so it's not like they're 'hoarding the money for themselves' or whatever the claim is. They're paying off creditors, one of which is the cemeteries etc. The court also apparently held that they did not know of the abuse until after it occurred, so apparently it's not a case of concealing the abuse. I still would agree that if it took place under their watch, they should pay up, and the victims do deserve it first--however, I do not think it is as cut-n-dry, black-n-white, good-vs-evil as the knee-jerk responses indicate here. To me, as a skeptic, it sounds more like a jump-on-the-bandwagon thing where the Catholic Church is pure evil and that's the end of the story.
Click to expand...


While your post is on the face of it reasonable, the actual words of this organisation hilited above qualify it for as much derision and outright disgust as any atrocious criminal acts in this world. It's a pathetic appeal to a forfeited respectability, and the act of subhuman self-righteous hypocrites with a deluded sense of entitlement.

As for the faux philosophical sophistry of Tommy, that callous opportunistic preening is equally disgusting. There's a time and place for everything, Tommy. Masturbation should be done in private.
 
Aepervius said:
Getting away with the rules of law is what i expect CEO and politician do on a regular basis. We are talking about people which pretend to have a moral link to god and dictate/direct people moral choice. That makes "getting away" a much much less tenable proposition.
Click to expand...

GEOs and politicians also do moral things. They respectively do so within their fields, yet there are "scumbags" everywhere. So what is your point? That Christians claim a higher moral ground and that they know how reality works. So do GEOs and politicians if you "push" them.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Okay, you decide when it is appropriate to ask for the definition of words, right? I will try to be nice, but here it is.

We are skeptics! We try to be precise and stay with the facts. It is not a fact, that other people can be vile and evil. Yet we don't call out our fellow atheists and skeptics, right? They are in our group, right? We only call out the theists and so on.
That was the point, Dinwar, in part was trying to make in another thread. You don't write off other people simply because you don't accept their thinking. If you do so, you are setting an example for them to follow. The rule is this: Call them evil, vile and so on and the problem is solved. Further you don't have to try to understand them, because they are delusional, because they don't have evidence for their claims.

BTW neither has someone claiming other people are evil and vile. So by the rule of delusional, that person is delusional.
Click to expand...



BS. I'm telling you now to your face that you are wrong to just jump in and throw up "so people have different values", the "so" seasoning your message with the sense of a shrug of the shoulders, and an implication that the victims are of no concern. Yes my emotions are in play, as so they should be. We don't live "out there", the social and emotional and psychological truths of the situation are all that's important here, and your inappropriate sophistry is a deliberate intrusion of indifference to suffering and insult to compassion. You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Okay, you decide when it is appropriate to ask for the definition of words, right? I will try to be nice, but here it is.

We are skeptics! We try to be precise and stay with the facts. It is not a fact, that other people can be vile and evil. Yet we don't call out our fellow atheists and skeptics, right? They are in our group, right? We only call out the theists and so on.

That was the point, Dinwar, in part was trying to make in another thread. You don't write off other people simply because you don't accept their thinking. If you do so, you are setting an example for them to follow. The rule is this: Call them evil, vile and so on and the problem is solved. Further you don't have to try to understand them, because they are delusional, because they don't have evidence for their claims.

BTW neither has someone claiming other people are evil and vile. So by the rule of delusional, that person is delusional.
Click to expand...

I don't think trying to be nice is your issue, but trying to be coherent, or at least relevant, would be useful.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
GEOs and politicians also do moral things. They respectively do so within their fields, yet there are "scumbags" everywhere. So what is your point? That Christians claim a higher moral ground and that they know how reality works. So do GEOs and politicians if you "push" them.
Click to expand...

If the catholic church had any of the moral standing they assert they have, there wouldn't be ONE verifiable story of conspiracy involving hiding the actions of proven sexual predators in the church.

Even as bad as a rep LEA's have today, there's not one verifiable account of an LEA covering up for a sexual predator cop.
 
asydhouse said:
BS. I'm telling you now to your face that you are wrong to just jump in and throw up "so people have different values", the "so" seasoning your message with the sense of a shrug of the shoulders, and an implication that the victims are of no concern. Yes my emotions are in play, as so they should be. We don't live "out there", the social and emotional and psychological truths of the situation are all that's important here, and your inappropriate sophistry is a deliberate intrusion of indifference to suffering and insult to compassion. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...

Okay, what they did was wrong, evil and vile. But you know what - it has nothing to do in particular with them being Christians or theists. This sort of thing has being going on for ages in the name of what ever "excuse" worked and yes, I wish we lived in a better world, but we don't. So what do you do in your everyday life to make it better? That is what counts.

It is easy to play to moral high ground on the Internet. There is just one problem - there is no moral high ground. It is all stuff happening. There is no salvation in this universe and no magic bullet and that includes science. You has a human can try to minimize the damage you do, but that requires that you learn to consider your own POV and not just everybody else's. :)

With regards
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
GEOs and politicians also do moral things. They respectively do so within their fields, yet there are "scumbags" everywhere. So what is your point? That Christians claim a higher moral ground and that they know how reality works. So do GEOs and politicians if you "push" them.
Click to expand...

Your objection have NOTHING to do that the church pretend to have a higher moral ground and yet in such case try to avoid the moral action and do a sleazy bypass. So why even bother answering ?

And it is CEO not GEO. Chief Executive Officer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom