Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

The Hazards of Belief

1…254255257259260…334

Comments

  • #7682
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That certainly explains why my mother wanted me to either be a priest or a doctor - I was the middle child, and she wanted a priest or a doctor in the family as both were seen as a vocation and would increase the family's social standing!

    I was considering the priesthood when all the scandals about the priests having relationships came out (seemed like a great way to get the ladies!). I reconsidered however when all the scandals about the priests abusing children came out...

    Wise choice Dr.Jack,pays better too.


  • #7683
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,876 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    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.

    Are you implying that homosexuality causes paedophilia? That's a common tactic now among the catholic child-rape apologists.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • #7684
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 30,558 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Are you implying that homosexuality causes paedophilia? That's a common tactic now among the catholic child-rape apologists.

    I didn't think he said that at all? He was discussing homosexuality, he made no reference to children, I think two separate lines of thought are being conflated.


  • #7685
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,180 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Are you implying that homosexuality causes paedophilia?


    The only person implying that was yourself HD. Fran implied no such thing. That's a bit like suggesting being religious causes paedophilia. It shows a poor understanding of paedophilia, let alone a poor and sensationalist understanding of people who molest and abuse children.

    That's a common tactic now among the catholic child-rape apologists.


    Among... who? :confused:


  • #7686
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I guess fran can quickly clear up any misunderstanding by explaining exactly what was meant by: "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."

    How would such repression ultimately manifest itself, fran?


  • Advertisement
  • #7687
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    The only person implying that was yourself HD. Fran implied no such thing. That's a bit like suggesting being religious causes paedophilia. It shows a poor understanding of paedophilia, let alone a poor and sensationalist understanding of people who molest and abuse children.





    Among... who? :confused:

    There have been a number of posters, mostly on the other forum and to be perfectly honest catholic child rape apologists would be a generous way of describing them. They also, quite frequently, sought to connect homosexuality with paedophilia, often quite directly.

    Honestly that is exactly the meaning I took from fran17's comment too, simply because I have heard it before from people with similar views to him.

    MrP


  • #7688
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,180 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I guess fran can quickly clear up any misunderstanding by explaining exactly what was meant by: "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."

    How would such repression ultimately manifest itself, fran?



    Fran explained in the first part of the same post:

    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.


    It manifested itself in the fact that a significant number of men in the priesthood were homosexual men.


  • #7689
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,863 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Fran explained in the first part of the same post:





    It manifested itself in the fact that a significant number of men in the priesthood were homosexual men.

    That's a convoluted reading, but fair enough, I suppose.


  • #7690
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,180 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's a convoluted reading, but fair enough, I suppose.


    Ah fairness Oscar, convoluted reading is implying there was anything in that post about paedophilia, let alone the implications that fran is an apologist for child rapists!!

    Look I don't like the idea of anyone making excuses for paedophiles or child molesters, but all too often in this thread I've seen misguided associations being made between people who are religious and paedophilia and child molestation.

    The same posters get a whiff of an association between the priesthood and gay men and suddenly it's a case of "Ooh no, we can't be having that!". Honestly, it seems like another case of a refusal to acknowledge the fact that the priesthood is the most logical place for gay men who couldn't be open about their sexuality in a society where being gay was, by the RCC's own standards at the time - intrinsically disordered.

    The last place gay men were likely to be persecuted was right under the noses of the RCC itself!! :D

    That is a completely and totally separate issue from the numbers of paedophiles who joined the priesthood because they would have unquestioned access to children, and also the numbers of child molesters and abusers within the clergy who took advantage of their position to inflict intolerable cruelty and suffering upon children.

    Anyone who apologises or excuses that behaviour, is an idiot.

    Anyone who uses that behaviour to score points in a discussion, is an idiot.

    Anyone who appropriates and uses the suffering of anyone in their anti-religious rants, well, they're an idiot and all.

    This thread is supposed to be about the hazards of belief, and there are plenty to choose from, without appropriating the suffering of human beings to score points. It's undignifying tbh, both to those who have suffered, and indeed to those who continue to suffer, because of their religious beliefs.


  • #7691
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Are you implying that homosexuality causes paedophilia? That's a common tactic now among the catholic child-rape apologists.

    Wow,no such thing did I imply and I'm struggling to even comprehend your post.I clearly stated how society at the time,and the state,contributed to create this environment which manifested itself in gay men being forced into religious institutions in large numbers from fear of being exposed.The very institutions which deemed them sinners.
    To cast aspersions that a culture exists in any section of society which either defends or apologises for child abuse is dramatic at best but considering the vileness of the subject it's down right sickening.


  • Advertisement
  • #7692
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 39,876 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Can you give us the correct interpretation of the following, then, please?
    fran17 wrote: »
    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.

    What precisely are you referring to as 'the repression of sexuality and desires manifesting itself' ?

    Is this 'manifestation' different for a heterosexual priest or a homosexual priest?

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • #7693
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Can you give us the correct interpretation of the following, then, please?



    What precisely are you referring to as 'the repression of sexuality and desires manifesting itself' ?

    Is this 'manifestation' different for a heterosexual priest or a homosexual priest?
    Again,I made it quite clear regarding how the repressing of ones sexuality by society at the time resulted in gay men being ushered or forced into the priesthood.It did happen,in numbers well above the social norm,whether you wish to accept it or not.Your introduction of paedophilia into the conversation is not something I'm going to contribute to.


  • #7694
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    The CC must have known that mammies all over the Catholic world were sending their gay sons off to be priests, there was a certain logic to it. Was there a "don't ask don't tell" attitude? a few whacky catholics Ive come across put in terms of a "gay infiltration" but that makes it sound like a conspiracy theory and doesn't really hold up to any inspection.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #7695
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    fran17 wrote: »
    Again,I made it quite clear regarding how the repressing of ones sexuality by society at the time resulted in gay men being ushered or forced into the priesthood.It did happen,in numbers well above the social norm,whether you wish to accept it or not.Your introduction of paedophilia into the conversation is not something I'm going to contribute to.
    I have to admist to having some trouble seeing the connection here... I'm sorry, but it really doesn't add up. When you speak about the consequences of repressing one's sexuality...
    fran17 wrote:
    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.
    ...that sounds like you are implying a serious negative consequence. Usually when you say "X organisation or society weren't prepared Y" Y is usually bad. To use a silly analogy, which of these make more sense "I was unprepared for £2000 being taken out of my bank account unexpectedly" or "I was unprepared for £2000 being unexpectly lodged in my bank account"?

    Then, if the unexpected consequence was gay people signing up to be priests I am struggling to see hy that would require preraration, or indeed why the RCC or society would have an issue with preparedness for that. That simply does not make sense.

    Then another point is how does sexual repression impact homosexual preist diferently to heterosexual priests? Sexual repression has been a part of life a a catholic priests for hundres of years, ever since they got worried about priest's kids taking a slice of their wealth, so again, what exactly is the effect of sexual repression for gay men as opposed to straight?

    Ah... Here we go...
    fran17 wrote:
    I myself will also be voting no in the upcoming referendum.Firstly from a religious standpoint as marriage is,has and always will be first and foremost a religious ceremony.As Pope Francis declared yesterday anything else is simply "an attempt to redefine the very institution of marriage".All attempts to dilute and redefine with whatever mutated version of marriage is as the pope said "disfiguring Gods plan for creation".I believe its very sad and regrettable that,if passed,society will be forcefully legislated to recognise this redefined abomination.
    As for the link between homosexual men and paedophilia,well of course there is unfortunately paedophilia in all sections of society,both straight and gay.However,as much of the gay society is still by and large in the shadows then we can only take public gay figures into consideration.So when you take characters such as Terry Bean,David Norris,Elton John,Michael Barrymore,George Michael and the as yet unnamed director of lgbtq Dublin and look at there individual points of view on issues such as drugs,monogamy,pederasty and age of consent then definite question must arise.
    There may be many good members of the gay community but as of yet due to either disinterest,shame or lack of strength they refuse to acknowledge what is a very sinister undercurrent in the lifestyle of the sexually active gay man.As the debate intensifies over the coming months these issues must be addressed.

    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...?

    MrP


  • #7696
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,180 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I have to admist to having some trouble seeing the connection here... I'm sorry, but it really doesn't add up. When you speak about the consequences of repressing one's sexuality...

    ...that sounds like you are implying a serious negative consequence. Usually when you say "X organisation or society weren't prepared Y" Y is usually bad. To use a silly analogy, which of these make more sense "I was unprepared for £2000 being taken out of my bank account unexpectedly" or "I was unprepared for £2000 being unexpectly lodged in my bank account"?

    Then, if the unexpected consequence was gay people signing up to be priests I am struggling to see hy that would require preraration, or indeed why the RCC or society would have an issue with preparedness for that. That simply does not make sense.


    It absolutely makes sense because the RCC were not prepared for the idea of having homosexual men among their ranks when they condemned homosexuality as intrinsically disordered. It would seem completely illogical then that gay men would sign up to a vocation such as the priesthood, but if you think about it, given the time, and how homosexuality was viewed in society, it made perfect sense for a gay man to enter the priesthood.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    Then another point is how does sexual repression impact homosexual preist diferently to heterosexual priests? Sexual repression has been a part of life a a catholic priests for hundres of years, ever since they got worried about priest's kids taking a slice of their wealth, so again, what exactly is the effect of sexual repression for gay men as opposed to straight?


    But fran didn't say anything about whether repression of their sexuality affected homosexual/heterosexual men differently. As I understood the context of his post, it was referring to the effect of repression of sexuality on society as a whole, which is why I said:

    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    You didn't surely type that with a straight face? :pac:


    Society, religious organisations, and indeed governments were very much aware of how repressing sexuality would manifest itself in society. That's how they were able to justify the continued existence of the laundries and keep the rampant child sexual abuse covered up for so long!!

    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...?

    MrP


    You pull a post from a post up from an old thread in a different forum to undermine fran's opinion in this thread that he gave only a few days ago...

    I won't be explaining anything about that post as it is completely irrelevant to the flow of conversation that preceded posters taking one line out of a post and ignoring context to construe an entirely different point from the one that was made in context if anyone had read what was written in the first sentence of the post itself.


  • #7697
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I won't be explaining anything about that post as it is completely irrelevant to the flow of conversation that preceded posters taking one line out of a post and ignoring context to construe an entirely different point from the one that was made in context if anyone had read what was written in the first sentence of the post itself.
    LOL. OK. Let me see if I undertand you correctly here... fran17 posts something which a number of poster, myself included, took to mean a certain thing. I then find a post where fran17 has said EXACTLY THAT THING, and you think that found post is irrelevant to whether or not fran17 actually meant what he seemed to be implying... Is that about it?

    Even for you that is pretty astonishing.

    MrP


  • #7698
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,180 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    MrPudding wrote: »
    LOL. OK. Let me see if I undertand you correctly here... fran17 posts something which a number of poster, myself included, took to mean a certain thing. I then find a post where fran17 has said EXACTLY THAT THING, and you think that found post is irrelevant to whether or not fran17 actually meant what he seemed to be implying... Is that about it?


    The reason that post you pulled from a year ago is irrelevant now, is because it's over a year old, and I for one anyway allow for the fact that people's opinions change over time. I know mine does, does yours? What he seemed to be implying was interpreted that way by a couple of posters here, but I personally don't keep scores on people's opinions. Their opinion is only relevant for the time in which we are now. Pulling their opinion from a year ago to undermine their opinion now is just underhanded and unnecessary IMO.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    Even for you that is pretty astonishing.

    MrP


    That must be quite the little dossier on posters you have there :p

    Seriously Mr P, let it go, you'll feel better for it. I'd tell you myself that I'm often inconsistent depending upon how well a person can argue their case without descending to having to use underhanded tactics to undermine another person's opinion. Once they engage in that sort of behaviour, they've lost their case as far as I'm concerned, personally.

    You may of course have a different view that says once a person expresses an opinion, they are never allowed to change their opinion, and must always be reminded of the opinion they once held. I'm just not sure how useful a strategy that is, beyond mere mud slinging.


  • #7699
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    The reason that post you pulled from a year ago is irrelevant now, is because it's over a year old, and I for one anyway allow for the fact that people's opinions change over time. I know mine does, does yours? What he seemed to be implying was interpreted that way by a couple of posters here, but I personally don't keep scores on people's opinions. Their opinion is only relevant for the time in which we are now. Pulling their opinion from a year ago to undermine their opinion now is just underhanded and unnecessary IMO.





    That must be quite the little dossier on posters you have there :p

    Seriously Mr P, let it go, you'll feel better for it. I'd tell you myself that I'm often inconsistent depending upon how well a person can argue their case without descending to having to use underhanded tactics to undermine another person's opinion. Once they engage in that sort of behaviour, they've lost their case as far as I'm concerned, personally.

    You may of course have a different view that says once a person expresses an opinion, they are never allowed to change their opinion, and must always be reminded of the opinion they once held. I'm just not sure how useful a strategy that is, beyond mere mud slinging.

    Certain opinions are not time specific unless one retracts them . Has the poster in question retracted that opinion ?


  • #7700
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,180 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    marienbad wrote: »
    Certain opinions are not time specific unless one retracts them . Has the poster in question retracted that opinion ?


    That might work for some people who demand that people retract their previous opinions and statements they made in the past, but I'm more than willing to work with the opinion someone expresses in the here and now rather than trudge over old ground with them. I don't see the purpose in it other than an attempt to humiliate a person, and seeing as I wouldn't like it done to me, I'm sure as hell not going to try and do it to someone else.

    That's just me though, I'm more interested in someone's argument, than being interested in lording it over them. I don't believe that evet contributes very constructively to a discussion.


  • #7701
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That might work for some people who demand that people retract their previous opinions and statements they made in the past, but I'm more than willing to work with the opinion someone expresses in the here and now rather than trudge over old ground with them. I don't see the purpose in it other than an attempt to humiliate a person, and seeing as I wouldn't like it done to me, I'm sure as hell not going to try and do it to someone else.

    That's just me though, I'm more interested in someone's argument, than being interested in lording it over them. I don't believe that evet contributes very constructively to a discussion.



    That is all very nice but it has zero relevance to the discussion


  • Advertisement
  • #7702
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    The reason that post you pulled from a year ago is irrelevant now, is because it's over a year old, and I for one anyway allow for the fact that people's opinions change over time. I know mine does, does yours? What he seemed to be implying was interpreted that way by a couple of posters here, but I personally don't keep scores on people's opinions. Their opinion is only relevant for the time in which we are now. Pulling their opinion from a year ago to undermine their opinion now is just underhanded and unnecessary IMO.
    Very good, but I haven't seen anything that would indicate that his option has changed. Whilst I am all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, and I really am, once the doubt has been taken away then unless I see something to indicate a change, then I am afraid I will stick with what I know. What we have here is a poster that has certain views, views that are in common with certain other posters that have other particular views. This will raise a certain air of suspicion. Then there is a post which can, quite reasonably, ben interpreted a particular way, this is reasonable due to the particular views that seem to be held by this person, and persons that share other views this person holds. Then we have the denial. Ah now, that isn't what I meant, what I meant was <insert something that (seriously OEJ) really, really doesn't make any sense using any kind of logic or grammar that I am aware of>. OK, now I am really suspicious, so I do a search.

    And I will say something else. I object to your characterisation of my actions as underhanded. We have a poster that has said something easily interpreted as meaning A, he then says ah no, I meant B, even though B does not make sense in the context. I then discover he has previously said A, and I am the underhanded one? Really OEJ, have a word.

    My view on fran17 would have been completely different had he said, "you know what guys, a year ago I did believe there was a connection between homosexuality and child abuse, but I have done some research and now I realise that this is not the case, and it is actually quite an offensive view to hold. What I actually meant here was..." But he didn't. He came up with some crappy interpretation of his words that really don't make any sense at all.

    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That must be quite the little dossier on posters you have there tongue.png
    Not really, but certain nasty attitudes and views stick in my craw. Should I apologise for that? I really like the way we have a person drawing a connection between homosexuality and child abuse and you are trying to make the persona calling him out the bad guy. Your parents must be very proud. You aren't an RCC bishop by any chance, are you?
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Seriously Mr P, let it go, you'll feel better for it.
    I feel absolutely fine. Slightly irritated that I am being accused of being underhanded, but aside from that I am fine.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I'd tell you myself that I'm often inconsistent depending upon how well a person can argue their case without descending to having to use underhanded tactics to undermine another person's opinion. Once they engage in that sort of behaviour, they've lost their case as far as I'm concerned, personally.
    I really am struggling to get my head round this, calling someone out for appearing to be less than truthful about their views is underhanded now? And we can all be a little inconsistent in our arguments and posts, but thinking there is, on the one hand, a connection between homosexuality and child abuse and on the other, that there isn't is a little more than mere inconsistency.

    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    You may of course have a different view that says once a person expresses an opinion, they are never allowed to change their opinion, and must always be reminded of the opinion they once held. I'm just not sure how useful a strategy that is, beyond mere mud slinging.
    I absolutely hold the view that a person is entitle


  • #7703
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    That might work for some people who demand that people retract their previous opinions and statements they made in the past, but I'm more than willing to work with the opinion someone expresses in the here and now rather than trudge over old ground with them. I don't see the purpose in it other than an attempt to humiliate a person, and seeing as I wouldn't like it done to me, I'm sure as hell not going to try and do it to someone else.

    That's just me though, I'm more interested in someone's argument, than being interested in lording it over them. I don't believe that evet contributes very constructively to a discussion.
    Ah, more insults for me, awesome. Now I am trying to humiliate and lord it over him? Really?

    I would love to work with the opinion he is expressing now, but it doesn't make any sense. His words don't match with his reasoning. His "meaning" for the consequences of repressing one's sexuality reads more like furious back peddling and damage control and any genuine meaning for the phrase. His previously stated view, that there is a connection between homosexuality and child abuse is a much better explanation for the phrase he used.

    MrP


  • #7704
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 28,641 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    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".


  • #7705
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,180 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    marienbad wrote: »
    That is all very nice but it has zero relevance to the discussion


    Actually it's very relevant to this particular discussion. It was a direct response to your post, and to be perfectly honest, if someone demanded that I retract statements I made in the past which were completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, I'd be telling them in no uncertain terms to step off.


  • #7706
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Actually it's very relevant to this particular discussion. It was a direct response to your post, and to be perfectly honest, if someone demanded that I retract statements I made in the past which were completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, I'd be telling them in no uncertain terms to step off.

    Why not just let the poster in question clarify for him/herself ?


  • #7707
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,180 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    marienbad wrote: »
    Why not just let the poster in question clarify for him/herself ?


    I have no doubt fran is able to clarify anything for himself (not that he should have to if posters didn't wilfully misconstrue what was actually written, and there was no mention of paedophilia in that post), but other posters are not the only people with the right to call people out on their bullshìt.

    I would have been more than willing to let it go, but I was asked by Mr P to explain a post that he had pulled from fran's post history from over a year ago. Now that might be an acceptable discussion tactic to Mr P and yourself, but I consider it underhanded personality politics.

    The irony that in a thread titled 'the hazards of belief', in a forum where most posters will have changed their beliefs, yet they make no allowances for the fact that other people may change, modify, or even abandon their previous beliefs upon being presented with new information.


  • #7708
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    marienbad wrote: »
    Why not just let the poster in question clarify for him/herself ?

    I have clarified it twice already.Yes their is things I said in the past which I regret,they were ill judged and some were,well,down right stupid.Some were for dramatic value and others in response to what was at times vicious personal attacks on myself.
    This is my response to being questioned on the matter in the past:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbuttetin/showthread.php?p=91101958

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057241068&page=52


  • #7709
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    I'll try one more...
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I have no doubt fran is able to clarify anything for himself (not that he should have to if posters didn't wilfully misconstrue what was actually written, and there was no mention of paedophilia in that post), but other posters are not the only people with the right to call people out on their bullshìt.
    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.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I would have been more than willing to let it go, but I was asked by Mr P to explain a post that he had pulled from fran's post history from over a year ago.
    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.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Now that might be an acceptable discussion tactic to Mr P and yourself, but I consider it underhanded personality politics.
    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.
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    The irony that in a thread titled 'the hazards of belief', in a forum where most posters will have changed their beliefs, yet they make no allowances for the fact that other people may change, modify, or even abandon their previous beliefs upon being presented with new information.

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

    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


  • #7710
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    fran17 wrote: »
    I have clarified it twice already.Yes their is things I said in the past which I regret,they were ill judged and some were,well,down right stupid.Some were for dramatic value and others in response to what was at times vicious personal attacks on myself.
    This is my response to being questioned on the matter in the past:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbuttetin/showthread.php?p=91101958

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057241068&page=52

    I think your first link is broken. I apologise that I missed your previous clarifications that your views had changed, and I am glad you made the effort to get the information you needed to do that.

    I feel all warm inside now...

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #7711
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I think your first link is broken. I apologise that I missed your previous clarifications that your views had changed, and I am glad you made the effort to get the information you needed to do that.

    I feel all warm inside now...

    MrP

    Yes for whatever reason that link does not work but that link is to a post which can be found on the previous page of the link which does work.No apology necessary MrP,the medium of online communication can be fraught at times.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement