The Hazards of Belief

One eyed Jack

MrPudding wrote: »

I'll try one more...

I did not willfully misconstrue. I willfully construed based on the experience, as I have stated previously, that posters that hold certain views about certain things often hold other views. The other view, in this case, being that homosexuality is linked to paedophilia.

Whilst I appreciate that you have fully accepted fran17's "explanation", I'm sorry, but I don't. It simply does not make any sense either in logic, in grammar or in the context of the discussion, you the reasons I went into above.

The thing is though - there was simply no mention of paedophilia in that post! It was a conversation about homosexuality within the priesthood, nothing more. Take a look again at what was said, and the context in which it was said (bold emphasis my own):

fran17 wrote: »

Generalise and stereotype at will,it wont make it true though.
Ah,no I don't believe I made the argument for the RCC being a good,bad or indifferent place for gay men to reside.While there may be no conclusive evidence regarding this matter there is a number of studies which very much conclude that the percentage of gay men in the RCC is vastly higher than in the general population as a whole.A US study in the 1990's estimated it to be as high as 33% while another ranged it anywhere from 15-58%.
Why,baring in mind religious teachings on the matter,would such a disproportionate amount enter the priesthood?What is the net gain?

Custardpi wrote: »

Assuming those figures are accurate could it be possible (just wildly speculating here, could be wrong) that in previous eras men who for some strange reason showed a reluctance/inability to settle down with a nice girl would be likely candidates to be gently (or perhaps not so gently) nudged towards a vocation by their family as a "respectable" alternative?

fran17 wrote: »

Yes I agree,this would seem to be the most logical explanation.I can recall a priest on Joe Duffy in the recent past claiming that half of his class in Maynooth were gay men.This of course was decades past.The RCC were very much unprepared or informed at the time,as I think most of society were,on how the repression of ones sexuality and desires would ultimately manifest itself.
Thankfully nowadays most people can,in general,be who they are and live the lives they wish to live.

NO mention of, and no allusion to, and no connection with paedophilia.

MrPudding wrote: »

Here's the thing, I didn't ask you to explain anything. I pointed out that the post I found from all the way back last year kind of backed up the interpretation of those posters that thought there was something a little off. I invited you to give an alternative meaning to his words, if you so chose, but I did not need you to explain what they meant, as I believe the meaning is quite clear.

Hmm...

MrPudding wrote: »

See OEJ, this is why we sometimes take a certain meaning form certain words, particulalry when the words are form certain posters. It's because we have seen it before, not necessarily from the same poster, but sometimes from the same type of poster. Or perhaps you would like to explain how the quote above does not say what it appears to say and means something else.

That looks like an invitation to explain what another user meant in the post you quoted from a previous and unrelated discussion.

MrPudding wrote: »

Again with the insults. I am still struggling to see how it is underhanded to actually try to understand a poster's opinion on a subject to understand what that poster means when they say something either ambiguous or unclear.

Whilst it is super awesome that you take everyone at their word and give everyone the benefit of the doubt, but the benefit of the doubt should only go so far. I think it is perfectly acceptable when one thinks someone is perhaps being a little dishonest, to seek some clarification. If that clarification either does not come or, when it does, it doesn't make sense, then I don't see the big deal in seeing if that poster has said anything on this subject in the past. Top be perfectly honest, I don't consider that to be underhanded. What I do consider to be underhanded is saying something and then trying to pass it off with some feeble excuse when people take a certain meaning from you words, when the meaning they have taken is exactly something you have said in the past.

I'n afraid we'll have to disagree on our standards of perfectly acceptable standards in a discussion.

I would however appreciate clarification on the part in bold, because when you invited me to explain something, and then claim only minutes later that you didn't ask me to explain something, trying to pass it off with some feeble excuse that you were inviting me to give an alternative meaning when I take your words exactly as you have written them, and the meaning I took from them is exactly what you had written in the previous post. By your own standards, that is an underhanded tactic in a discussion.

Awkward...

MrPudding wrote: »

One of my previous posts got cut off, I have just noticed. I had written a bit about this, I will try again.

I noticed it myself, and while it didn't make any sense either in logic, in grammar or in the context of the discussion, I wasn't going to be a dick about it as I got the general gist of what you were saying from the post as a whole.

MrPudding wrote: »

I am actually quite happy for people to change their mind. Particularly on receipt of newer or better information. In fact, I get really irritated when politicians are criticised for changing their minds on something, flip-flopping. I don't want a politician that has a pre-conceived idea and refuses to change his mind even in the face of evidence showing he is wrong. That is not a weakness, that is not a flaw, that is something we should all aspire to. So I fully support a person's right to change his mind.

That said, I will not simply assume someone has changed their mind. That is stretching "benefit of the doubt" a little further than I think it should be stretched. If someone espouses a particular view and does not clarify that their position has changed then benefit of the doubt should not apply. They have confirmed a view. The box is open and the cat is either dead or it is alive, there is no doubt to be given the benefit of. If that is no longer his position then I will be delighted. But I am sorry, until he tells me that he now accepts marriage equality as something that was right and proper to legislate for and that he no longer thinks that homosexuality is synonymous with child abuse or some "sinister undercurrent", then I am sorry, but I will go with what I know.

MrP

None of that was actually relevant though to anything fran had said in their post, and if you read it again, you'll see that the post was nothing to to with marriage equality, or any suggestion that homosexuality is synonymous with child abuse, and the only posters perceiving a "sinister undercurrent" to the post, were those posters that were reading into things that weren't there:

fran17 wrote: »

Yes I agree,this would seem to be the most logical explanation.I can recall a priest on Joe Duffy in the recent past claiming that half of his class in Maynooth were gay men.This of course was decades past.The RCC were very much unprepared or informed at the time,as I think most of society were,on how the repression of ones sexuality and desires would ultimately manifest itself.
Thankfully nowadays most people can,in general,be who they are and live the lives they wish to live.

The epitome of a hazard of their own belief - confirmation bias.

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36189614

Indonesian police have confiscated a sex toy from a remote village after its inhabitants and some on social media mistook it for an "angel".

I wonder if it was wearing the hijab when the fishermen found it, or would they have dressed it up? It just seems odd.
The (real) local women as seen in the photo do not seem to wear headscarves.

Links234

Only God Controls The Weather

I'd seriously love to round up everyone who voted for this complete and utter plonker, and make them watch the Nicolas Cage version of The Wicker Man as punishment.

Custardpi

The Healy Raes are smarter than people give them credit for - great on the ground operators. His position on climate change may be the opposite one to practically all scientists but there's a definite audience out there for that kind of denial/scepticism & he's obviously looking to capitalise on that.

Lurkio

Links234 wrote: »

Only God Controls The Weather

I'd seriously love to round up everyone who voted for this complete and utter plonker, and make them watch the Nicolas Cage version of The Wicker Man as punishment.

He won't let ye though. He looks after his own. Personally I look forward to a return to clan based regional politics, and the attendant frivolity of cattle raids and feuding that will accompany it.

robindch

Custardpi wrote: »

His position on climate change may be the opposite one to practically all scientists but there's a definite audience out there for that kind of denial/scepticism & he's obviously looking to capitalise on that.

It's not skepticism, but hands-over-eyes blanket denialism. The belief that you can get something for nothing, or make somebody else pay for your own consumption. The simple-minded prerogative of the perpetual motion machine salesman. The hunting yowl of every clueless anti-Irish Water buffoon who ever drew breath.

oscarBravo

Custardpi wrote: »

The Healy Raes are smarter than people give them credit for - great on the ground operators. His position on climate change may be the opposite one to practically all scientists but there's a definite audience out there for that kind of denial/scepticism & he's obviously looking to capitalise on that.

It's an interesting perspective. It suggests that he's either a complete ****ing idiot, or the worst kind of deceitful pandering gob****e imaginable, with pretty much no other possibilities.

Either way: well done, Kerry. In a representative democracy, this is who you chose to represent you.

robindch

Links234 wrote: »

Only God Controls The Weather

Here's the excellent Mr Healy-Rae explaining his beliefs concerning the weather, the "combustible engine" and a famine in the 1740's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z28xVdck_ts

marienbad

robindch wrote: »

Here's the excellent Mr Healy-Rae explaining his beliefs concerning the weather, the "combustible engine" and a famine in the 1740's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z28xVdck_ts

He is correct on the famine .

Custardpi

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's an interesting perspective. It suggests that he's either a complete ****ing idiot, or the worst kind of deceitful pandering gob****e imaginable, with pretty much no other possibilities.

Either way: well done, Kerry. In a representative democracy, this is who you chose to represent you.

-

Winston Churchill wrote:

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

robindch

marienbad wrote: »

He is correct on the famine .

Well, blow me down with a feather - he is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Famine_(1740%E2%80%9341)

oscarBravo

"Climate has changed without human intervention, therefore human intervention can't change the climate."

Flawless logic, right there.

Cabaal

marienbad wrote: »

He is correct on the famine .

Indeed he was, but we know why this happened http://www.doonbleisce.com/The%20Great%20Frost%20in%20Ireland%20-%20%201740%20-%201741.htm

We also know that humans can and are effecting our climate now, but funny he ignores this information.

He's happy to accept the human weather as effect from a cause (but he doesn't mention the cause), but he won't accept the human cause now.

Links234

This is a seriously interesting read, perhaps the hazards of disbelief even, but it does highlight a lot of how organized atheism can fall into some of the same traps as religion.

Lurkio

Links234 wrote: »

This is a seriously interesting read, perhaps the hazards of disbelief even, but it does highlight a lot of how organized atheism can fall into some of the same traps as religion.

As long as there's greed, there will be chancers, and they do not discriminate as regards who they fleece. For every Slayer or Napalm Death, there is a Babymetal.

Links234

Lurkio wrote: »

For every Slayer or Napalm Death, there is a Babymetal.

I don't actually mind Babymetal ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Some extremely talented musicians in the live band.

Custardpi

Yeah don't get the hate. It's J-Pop fused with metal, what do you expect? Only boring music nerds with too much attachment to supposed musical "purity" could object to a group that are essentially a fun, cheesy as hell interpretation of the metal genre.

Links234

They're hardly the first manufactured metal band either. But honestly, the musicians involved are nothing short of spectacular. Give this a look:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNHujktWNuU

That bass section about half way through is phenominal! :eek:

There's not a band I'd actually listen to very often, but I'd love to see them live at some point, because they look to put on an incredible show.

robindch

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Climate has changed without human intervention, therefore human intervention can't change the climate."

Waterford Whispers weighs in:

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2016/05/05/danny-healy-rae-suggests-leaving-child-of-prague-under-bush-to-combat-climate-change/

Waterford Whispers wrote:

ALTHOUGH Danny Healy Rae is standing by his comments that “only God above is in charge of the weather”, the Kerry TD has admitted that Ireland can tackle climate change by implementing some tried-and-tested methods such as leaving a statue of the Child Of Prague under a bush overnight.

Healy Rae was speaking at a climate change discussion in the Dáil yesterday, when he made the argument that carbon taxation aimed at curbing climate change was costing the rural community massive sums of money.

Arguing against some fairly significant climate data mined from surveys and scientific research from all over the world, Healy Rae stressed that there wasn’t much that a government could do about climate change, but conceded that he would get as many people in his constituency to put their Child Of Prague out in the ditch, as well as having their St. Bridgid’s cloak at hand at all times.

“You can’t change the climate of the world by addressing carbon emissions or listening to scientists,” said Healy Rae, eating a Caramac.

“But we’ll do our best to ensure a few grand nice days there with the Child Of Prague under the hedge. Sure didn’t it work for us there in Kerry the time we were going to our cousin’s wedding, we put the statue out and it was a fierce day the next day altogether. There’s no reason a concentrated effort by a few hundred thousand people across the country couldn’t do more for climate change than you’d ever get done by banning fossil fuels”.

Healy Rae went on to state that the plan faced opposition “up in Dublin”, adding that “they’re just mad that they live in flats and don’t have a hedge to call their own”.

robindch

Links234 wrote: »

This is a seriously interesting read, perhaps the hazards of disbelief even, but it does highlight a lot of how organized atheism can fall into some of the same traps as religion.

That's one of the reasons why - for myself - I argue against referring to atheists as part of some kind of "community" and tend to avoid organizations which promote atheism.

Custardpi

robindch wrote: »

That's one of the reasons why - for myself - I argue against referring to atheists as part of some kind of "community" and tend to avoid organizations which promote atheism.

True, there is a tendency out there to assume "oh you're an atheist/agnostic, you must believe x/y/z & do a/b/c" whereas in reality the only thing unifying A&A people is scepticism or a lack of belief in a deity. The amount of sh1te & personal agendas around stuff like the Atheism+ clusterf*ck which I've observed from outside would make me very wary of getting involved in the "community" aspect of things, added to the fact that I'd always have a personal distrust for any club which would have me as a member.

Lurkio

Custardpi wrote: »

Yeah don't get the hate. It's J-Pop fused with metal, what do you expect? Only boring music nerds with too much attachment to supposed musical "purity" could object to a group that are essentially a fun, cheesy as hell interpretation of the metal genre.

Can't even have a moment of levity...............

Or people who like the music, they might have a problem with them too.

Links234

Lurkio wrote: »

Can't even have a moment of levity...............

I'll take any opportunity to waffle about Japanese metal bands, so you kinda baited me there. Especially Babymetal, because I just can't help jump straight in and defend the musicians involved. One of my absolutely favourite guitarists was in Babymetal, this guy right here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw4UA3z6jMM

Lurkio

Links234 wrote: »

I'll take any opportunity to waffle about Japanese metal bands, so you kinda baited me there. Especially Babymetal, because I just can't help jump straight in and defend the musicians involved. One of my absolutely favourite guitarists was in Babymetal, this guy right here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw4UA3z6jMM

O its not the ability of the lads to play that's the issue with me. Anyhoo.....

JPNelsforearm

Custardpi wrote: »

True, there is a tendency out there to assume "oh you're an atheist/agnostic, you must believe x/y/z & do a/b/c" whereas in reality the only thing unifying A&A people is scepticism or a lack of belief in a deity. The amount of sh1te & personal agendas around stuff like the Atheism+ clusterf*ck which I've observed from outside would make me very wary of getting involved in the "community" aspect of things, added to the fact that I'd always have a personal distrust for any club which would have me as a member.

looksee

robindch wrote: »

That's one of the reasons why - for myself - I argue against referring to atheists as part of some kind of "community" and tend to avoid organizations which promote atheism.

I agree, I do not see atheists as a community, I do not see any value in 'organised' atheism. Either you believe, or you do not. If you do not, fine, you get on with your life. The only reason for challenging religion (other than on Boards ) is when it interferes with secular life. In that case you challenge the relevant topic - including religion being taught in state schools, and people claiming god controls the weather.

Nor do I see the necessity for navel gazing about leaving religion. People who have been brought up in cults that split families, for example, might well need support in breaking away from a lifestyle. Everyone else should be capable of gradually working through what they believe, in their own heads. Certainly discuss your thoughts with other people, but why would you join a group to listen to someone else's ideas about why you should leave a group?

I admit I read that article very quickly, but it seemed to me to be a lot of self absorbed waffle. I unfortunately will never know as I am not prepared to give it any more time

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

Well, blow me down with a feather - he is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Famine_(1740%E2%80%9341)

He's not correct in his claim that the famine killed more than the then entire population of the island...

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

He's not correct in his claim that the famine killed more than the then entire population of the island...

Given his background, his knowledge of history, his fascination with playing to a simpletons' gallery, and his general unfamiliarity with the topic upon which he chose to address the nation, I'm happy to note that he got at least one fact right.

Cabaal

http://www.thejournal.ie/health-blogger-cancer-major-legal-action-2754309-May2016/

a belief of sorts..

AN AUSTRALIAN LIFESTYLE blogger who claimed to have cured brain cancer through “nutrition and holistic medicine” is facing legal action following an investigation by a consumer watchdog.

Custardpi

Tis the new religion alright - "superfoods", "wellness" & juicing the fúck out of everything in a three mile radius. Combined with the visual cathecism of Instragram selfies. Gibson ramped it up a notch of course but plenty of chancers like her making money off promoting similar guff.