• 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.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
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
Click to expand...

So when an official of an organization pats "Joe Kiddie Diddler" on the head and covers up for him, since it's only business as usual nobody is really guilty of anything and if nothing comes out until after the statute of limitations runs out, tough ****.

Does that about cover it?
 
Aepervius said:
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.
Click to expand...

God Executive Officer.
 
Aepervius said:
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.
Click to expand...

Try seeing it from their POV. They don't accept secular justice and they are trying their best to "beat the system".

Now from my POV I don't accept what they do and they should be subject to the full force of the law within the law.

Now I did get carried away "hazzling" Gawdzilla Sama, but there are at least 3 positions in play here:
  • Everything is morally relative, so what?!
  • They are evil and vile!
  • They are humans and judge them by the standard you want to be judged by yourself.
 
BStrong said:
So when an official of an organization pats "Joe Kiddie Diddler" on the head and covers up for him, since it's only business as usual nobody is really guilty of anything and if nothing comes out until after the statute of limitations runs out, tough ****.

Does that about cover it?
Click to expand...

Did the Catholic Church write the law?
 
The problem now is that this goes back to the Hobby Lobby case.

“It is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial,” -Alito

That ridiculous case is going to lead to some equally ridiculous cases. Like this one.
 
ehcks said:
The problem now is that this goes back to the Hobby Lobby case.

“It is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial,” -Alito

That ridiculous case is going to lead to some equally ridiculous cases. Like this one.
Click to expand...

Well, that is what happens when you mix religion, politics and the law.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Try seeing it from their POV. They don't accept secular justice and they are trying their best to "beat the system".

Now from my POV I don't accept what they do and they should be subject to the full force of the law within the law.

Now I did get carried away "hazzling" Gawdzilla Sama, but there are at least 3 positions in play here:
  • Everything is morally relative, so what?!
  • They are evil and vile!
  • They are humans and judge them by the standard you want to be judged by yourself.
Click to expand...

Those are not necessarily separate positions. I can hold that everything is morally relative, they are humans and should be judged by the standard I would like to be judged by and that raping a child makes them evil and vile.

Saying that everything is morally relative does not automatically lead to "so what".
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Did the Catholic Church write the law?
Click to expand...

No, but they have sure used their position in society to take every advantage possible in covering up abuse allegations, and everything possible to minimize any possible liability rising from their actions as functioning as accessories after the fact.

I've got some eyeball witness experience of it around here, it wasn't pretty, and it wasn't about anything other than CYA for the church - a joke going around in certain circles back then related to an even older joke - "Jesus saves, the Pope invests" came out as "the Priest fellates, the Pope forgets."
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Did the Catholic Church write the law?
Click to expand...

What the hell has that got to do with anything? I didn't write the traffic laws, but if I drive on the wrong side of the road I would fully expect to suffer the consequences.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
It is not a fact, that other people can be vile and evil.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is.

"Normative" does not mean "not real".

Yet we don't call out our fellow atheists and skeptics, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, we do. That this thread deals specifically with another group does not change this. Acting as though it does is entirely silly.

To say that "true skeptics" cannot label the rape of children as evil and vile because of "lack of evidence" is, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid. Skepticism, as a philosophical position, holds only that we must acknowledge that all moral frameworks are normative, not that they are worthless, without rational basis, or unworthy of consideration. They can be, but this is not necessarily the case.

To act as though no skeptic can make moral judgments is, therefore, rather stupid. Skepticism does not require the rejection of morality, just that you acknowledge the lack of magical force making you right on a cosmic scale.

Lack of empathy for others is still a problem from a skeptical viewpoint. Murder, rape, torture, sociopathy; the skeptic is entirely free to label these things as reprehensible. To say that skeptics cannot make moral judgments is to betray both a complete lack of understanding of skepticism and moral philosophy and an attitude so concerned with navel-gazing over actually understanding the universe that one can't help but wonder if the speaker is actually concerned with intellectual integrity or is simply in it to try and make themselves feel superior to the plebians.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee has, knowingly or unknowingly, harbored child rapists*. It has been ordered to pay damages to the victims. It has attempted to avoid doing this by squirreling the money away where it thinks no one would look. By any reasonable moral system, this is reprehensible behavior. That said moral system is inherently normative does not change this.

Stop trying to score points and actually think things through before you say them.

EDIT: *All of this is assuming that the article is accurate. Whether or not it actually is, the rest of the argument stands.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
No they did not. They just violated it. Just as they violated countless kids. Then they attempted to cover it up. Now they are caught, they are attempting to hide the money. Yet here you are defending them.
Click to expand...

With the time honored "everybody does it" defense.
 
asydhouse said:
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.
Click to expand...

well, that was my point--that highlighted phrase was NOT the "actual words of the organization"--it was how a biased reporter decided to describe their actions in trying to segregate the money that was owed to the cemetery fund. You could argue they did this to "avoid paying" the victims--but that is certainly not the diocese's argument, so that phrase was putting words in their mouths.
 
stanfr said:
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.
Click to expand...

That means they file then, that's not an indicator of when they came forward.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
That means they file then, that's not an indicator of when they came forward.
Click to expand...

And knowing the eagerness of male victims to publicly announce their sexual victimization is it any surprise that victims aren't running to the press and running to the authorities?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom