1000's of kids making their communion today

One eyed Jack · 18-05-2016 3:05pm

iguana wrote: »

Are you deliberately missing the point? It has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the ritual. It has everything to do with an 8 year old child being the only one of 30+ children who day spend nearly ever day with, not being the one to get €1000+. Being the only child not spending months on end discussing what they will buy and have bought with their money. That will have an impact on the child whether you like it or not and it's truly 'out of touch with reality' to think otherwise.

That's really not a fair comment iguana as it will depend very much on the child themselves and how they were raised, and as for the whole idea of children discussing what they will buy and have bought with their money, isn't that more of an indicator of how that child was raised by their parents?

iguana wrote: »

Maybe because this isn't something you have grown up with you can't really understand it. It is all about the money. Deep down I'm an anti-capitalist, anarchist who has opted out of so many mainstream expectations. I live on very little money, almost everything I own is second-hand, I value nothing but spending time with loved ones. My parents have similar attitudes. And without even thinking about it, I can tell you exactly how much money I got for my communion, who gave me what and what I bought with the money. So can most people I've talked to about it. It's seared in. I remember endless discussions in the schoolyard about who got how much. Even years later it was a repeated topic of conversation. And it's a huge part of why otherwise rational people still remain in the RCC.

It's all about the money for some people, for some adults, and for some children. I've grown up with it, and I do understand it - the idea that some people are obsessed with being above everyone else is a fairly universal concept that's universally applicable. It doesn't have to be all about the money at all, and I would wonder about the kind of values a parent is instilling in their child that teaches them it's all about the money.

Are those really the kinds of values you want to emulate and instill in your own children - because someone else does something, they have to do something so they have something to talk about too?

lazygal wrote: »

I got £50 for my communion. I still remember the name of the person who got the most in our class 25 years later. She got £300.

I got £19 for my communion, and £10 of that was from my granny who commented "hasn't he a woeful beggar face!" :pac:

(I gave any money I got to my mother who told me I should save it!

)

I got no money for my Confirmation, but the most memorable present I got was the wrist watch my next door neighbour gave me.

I didn't care for extravagance then, and my son doesn't care for it now, and he didn't give a fiddlers who made what or what they were spending it on when he was making his Communion.

meeeeh · 18-05-2016 3:15pm

iguana wrote: »

Are you deliberately missing the point? It has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the ritual. It has everything to do with an 8 year old child being the only one of 30+ children who day spend nearly ever day with, not being the one to get €1000+. Being the only child not spending months on end discussing what they will buy and have bought with their money. That will have an impact on the child whether you like it or not and it's truly 'out of touch with reality' to think otherwise.

Maybe because this isn't something you have grown up with you can't really understand it. It is all about the money. Deep down I'm an anti-capitalist, anarchist who has opted out of so many mainstream expectations. I live on very little money, almost everything I own is second-hand, I value nothing but spending time with loved ones. My parents have similar attitudes. And without even thinking about it, I can tell you exactly how much money I got for my communion, who gave me what and what I bought with the money. So can most people I've talked to about it. It's seared in. I remember endless discussions in the schoolyard about who got how much. Even years later it was a repeated topic of conversation. And it's a huge part of why otherwise rational people still remain in the RCC.

Maybe it's exactly because I grew up where majority did confirmation and some didn't. Those who did not were spared after school religion classes and perfectly OK without the special day. We did get quite big presents or money but kids mostly want the same stuff so if you didn't get it for confirmation you got it for school end year, birthday or something similar. In my group of friends we had someone whose family has millions and his best friend's mother was struggling badly to bring up three kids after their father died. Kids are aware of inequalities around them or other differences and they manage to adapt as long as parents don't make even bigger deal out of it.

Only thing I remember about communion is that my shoes had a hint of heel and that one of the other girls looked like she was attacked with make up gun.

Shrap · 18-05-2016 7:41pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's really not a fair comment iguana as it will depend very much on the child themselves and how they were raised

Totally that. My eldest was the only kid in his class not to make either communion or confirmation - my youngest was one of two who didn't. It was a small rural school, so nobody went mental about it anyway, but my lads were both perfectly happy to get a day out doing bowling, cinema and a meal. Only delighted with themselves to get the tenner in an envelope from one other parent who was giving them out willy nilly at the school gate. None of their friends made any difference of them; neither of my kids made any difference of their friends. It was just the way it was, and kids are waay more accepting of the differences than the "one-up-man-ship" parents make them out to be.

I don't subscribe to that crap at all, and my kids don't either now they're grown and see the way religion works. By the time confirmation came round, the lads were well rounded enough to say for themselves that their friends were only doing it for the money - and they don't do jealousy either, I'm happy to report.

Shrap · 18-05-2016 7:48pm

iguana wrote: »

So can most people I've talked to about it. It's seared in. I remember endless discussions in the schoolyard about who got how much. Even years later it was a repeated topic of conversation. And it's a huge part of why otherwise rational people still remain in the RCC.

I reckon if you talked to the kids who live around me here, you'd find this is entirely irrelevant these days. Maybe because of the "Celtic Tiger" and kids more used to having the same stuff as each other (or indeed, here in the sticks, NOT having the same stuff as each other), but I disagree it's seared in now. But maybe it still is in places where the Limo, the fake tan and the one up man ship means something. Not here though.

porsche boy · 18-05-2016 8:05pm

I know it's not always the case but our kids are baptised purely for school reasons and nothing to do with imagenary friends.

Kenny Bania · 18-05-2016 11:49pm

This is the PR Pope at it again:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article77919292.html

Why people are okay with all this still baffles me. Their leader is a defender of paedos; and catholics still flock to church like obedient little sheep without batting an eyelid.

Of course, posters like One Eyed Jack will just say I'm being an "OTT h8er", and it was only a handful of kids who were molested, priests are men, and we are also men, so therefore we are also priests; or whatever other dumb logic he'll try to apply again. And confession boxes don't exist either apparently. I just made them up so I could describe confession in a sinister way.

legocrazy505 · 19-05-2016 12:07am

Kenny Bania wrote: »

This is the PR Pope at it again:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article77919292.html

Why people are okay with all this still baffles me. Their leader is a defender of paedos; and catholics still flock to church like obedient little sheep without batting an eyelid.

Of course, posters like One Eyed Jack will just say I'm being an "OTT h8er", and it was only a handful of kids who were molested, priests are men, and we are also men, so therefore we are also priests; or whatever other dumb logic he'll try to apply again.

The 2nd comment on that article. It's so good it doesn't even address the article. It seems even in the face of evidence people will literally say anything.

As for the actual topic of discussion, me and my brother both went through the standard rituals of alive-o and stuff. To be not Catholic in our primary school was at the time something they frowned upon (I'm 18 so this is fairly recent). They're better at it now though thankfully. Most parents do it these days in order to appease their own families or the school.

Absolam · 19-05-2016 12:18am

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Their leader is a defender of paedos.

Can you point to a specific occasion where he has defended anyone being a paedophile?

Kenny Bania · 19-05-2016 12:26am

Absolam wrote: »

Can you point to a specific occasion where he has defended anyone being a paedophile?

He provides pensions, housing, and private medical insurance to convicted paedophile priests. Another sympathiser, I see... Is the article I already posted not enough for you?

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/catholic-church-spent-millions-providing-for-paedophile-priests-20160109-gm2f4z.html

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/the-vatican-stillprotectspedophilepriests.html

http://www.michaelparenti.org/VaticanShuffle.html (before his time, but still valid since he's done f*ck all since).

19-05-2016 12:37am

The catholic church also assist many other offenders who are not priests.
Many convicts are helped back into society by the church.
That's kind of the point, they help everyone, like Jesus who hung out with some guys who did bad stuff sometime
( don't remember the Bible story)

Absolam · 19-05-2016 12:38am

Kenny Bania wrote: »

He provides pensions, housing, and private medical insurance to convicted paedophile priests. Another sympathiser, I see... Is the article I already posted not enough for you?

So... that's a no then?

One eyed Jack · 19-05-2016 12:39am

Kenny Bania wrote: »

This is the PR Pope at it again:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article77919292.html

Why people are okay with all this still baffles me. Their leader is a defender of paedos; and catholics still flock to church like obedient little sheep without batting an eyelid.

Of course, posters like One Eyed Jack will just say I'm being an "OTT h8er", and it was only a handful of kids who were molested, priests are men, and we are also men, so therefore we are also priests; or whatever other dumb logic he'll try to apply again. And confession boxes don't exist either apparently. I just made them up so I could describe confession in a sinister way.

Kenny I wouldn't bother tbh, you're doing a bang up job of making yourself look rather foolish without my help.

Kenny Bania · 19-05-2016 12:43am

Absolam wrote: »

So... that's a no then?

Did you really just stick your head in the sand?

Providing pensions, housing, and private medical insurance does not qualify as "support" in your book? What does then? Mowing their lawns too?

You paedo-sympathisers are so sad & transparent. The evidence is right in front of you, yet you still find an angle to deny it.

So you're totally cool with the Pope providing pensions, housing, and private medical insurance to convicted paedophile priests? That all sits just fine with you?

Kenny Bania · 19-05-2016 12:45am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Kenny I wouldn't bother tbh, you're doing a bang up job of making yourself look rather foolish without my help.

Should I quote your little "priests are men, and we are also men, so therefore we are also priests & we also molested kids" point, or would you rather forget it & brush it off with a "you look foolish - scarlet for you bro" comment?

Of course, I notice you took the time to comment, yet none of your comment was about the article I posted.

Absolam · 19-05-2016 12:49am

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Did you really just stick your head in the sand?

Nope, I really asked you can you point to a specific occasion where he has defended anyone being a paedophile. You're not doing that, are you?

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Providing pensions, housing, and private medical insurance does not qualify as "support" in your book? What does then? Mowing their lawns too?

It doesn't qualify as defending paedophiles, no. Sorry. Try again?

Kenny Bania wrote: »

You paedo-sympathisers are so sad & transparent. The evidence is right in front of you, yet you still find an angle to deny it.

I'm cut to the quick. Such dreadful name calling, and then you lie to my face. Terrible, just terrible.....

Kenny Bania wrote: »

So you're totally cool with the Pope providing pensions, housing, and private medical insurance to convicted paedophile priests? That all sits just fine with you?

Well, I am totally cool

As for what I'm cool with... sounds like you're making that I up, because I never told you. A bit like you making it up that the Pope is a defender of paedos I suspect.

Kenny Bania · 19-05-2016 12:54am

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I am totally cool As for what I'm cool with... sounds like you're making that I up, because I never told you. A bit like you making it up that the Pope is a defender of paedos I suspect.

Let me ask you directly then - are you okay with the Pope providing pensions, housing, and private medical insurance to convicted paedophile priests?

One eyed Jack · 19-05-2016 1:03am

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Should I quote your little "priests are men, and we are also men, so therefore we are also priests & we also molested kids" point, or would you rather forget it & brush it off with a "you look foolish - scarlet for you bro" comment?

Of course, I notice you took the time to comment, yet none of your comment was about the article I posted.

I think you're going to have to quote where I said that, because at least it will remind you of what I actually said, and how you've chosen to misrepresent what I actually said. I never said I was either embarrassed or scarlet for you either btw, it's not nice to laugh at someone who is making a fool of themselves, and I certainly don't see child sexual abuse as a laughing matter, nor is it a matter that should be used by anyone in an online pissing match.

None of this comment is about the article either, because I'm unable to muster up the faux outrage you're hoping for that I could compete at your level.

Absolam · 19-05-2016 1:13am

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Let me ask you directly then - are you okay with the Pope providing pensions, housing, and private medical insurance to convicted paedophile priests?

Wait up! I asked you directly can you point to a specific occasion where the Pope has defended anyone being a paedophile. Let's not hurry to skip over what we're discussing to address something completely new, eh? So... how about it? Can you point to a specific occasion where the Pope has defended anyone being a paedophile?

Kenny Bania · 19-05-2016 1:15am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think you're going to have to quote where I said that, because at least it will remind you of what I actually said, and how you've chosen to misrepresent what I actually said.

"when you're saying the Church molested kids, you might as well be saying men molest kids. You're a man Kenny. Do you approve of men molesting kids then?"

Wow - such amazing logic at work here.

Kenny Bania · 19-05-2016 1:17am

Absolam wrote: »

Wait up! I asked you directly can you point to a specific occasion where the Pope has defended anyone being a paedophile. Let's not hurry to skip over what we're discussing to address something completely new, eh? So... how about it? Can you point to a specific occasion where the Pope has defended anyone being a paedophile?

If you don't think financing paedophiles is showing support for them & defending their actions, I'm not sure what more we can discuss here.

Maybe the pope will sign your poster when he visits next year.

One eyed Jack · 19-05-2016 1:21am

Kenny Bania wrote: »

"when you're saying the Church molested kids, you might as well be saying men molest kids. You're a man Kenny. Do you approve of men molesting kids then?"

Wow - such amazing logic at work here.

So... nothing at all like you claimed I said then?

Well, thanks for clearing that up at least.

Any chance you could tone down the hyperbole and there might be a reasonable discussion to be salvaged from this mess?

Kenny Bania · 19-05-2016 1:32am

The only thing that amazes me here, 8 pages in, is how many people will blindly defend an organisation riddled with paedophiles, that systematically moved them around to avoid getting caught, and still finances & supports them to this very day.

You all seem to find the most bizarre ways to justify yourselves being okay with it, and directly supporting it by putting money in the collection plates - that probably paid for a last-minute Ryanair flight to get Fr. Touchy McFeely out of Clane parish over to a sauna in the Vatican before the cops arrived.

Absolam · 19-05-2016 1:33am

Kenny Bania wrote: »

If you don't think financing paedophiles is showing support for them & defending their actions, I'm not sure what more we can discuss here.

Well, I don't think the Church or religious orders providing pensions, housing, private medical insurance (or anything else) to convicted paedophile priests is the same as the Pope providing them, nor do I think the provision of such things to convicted paedophile priests is the same as defending convicted paedophile priests (much as I don't think the President of Ireland is defending convicted paedophile laypeople when the State provides them with social housing, state pensions or medical cards). So you're probably right, if you can't point to a specific occasion where the Pope has defended anyone being a paedophile, there's probably not more we can discuss here, since your post was apparently an unfounded slur.

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Maybe the pope will sign your poster when he visits next year.

Oooh.. that burns! Oh wait. Nope. It doesn't. Try harder?

One eyed Jack · 19-05-2016 1:41am

Kenny Bania wrote: »

The only thing that amazes me here, 8 pages in, is how many people will blindly defend an organisation riddled with paedophiles, that systematically moved them around to avoid getting caught, and still finances & supports them to this very day.

You all seem to find the most bizarre ways to justify yourselves being okay with it, and directly supporting it by putting money in the collection plates - that probably paid for a last-minute Ryanair flight to get Fr. Touchy McFeely out of Clane parish over to a sauna in the Vatican before the cops arrived.

Have you actually read any of my posts in this thread Kenny? Because the post above suggests you haven't. It suggests that rather than engage in reasonable discussion, you'd prefer to grandstand and soapbox, in which case you're on your own as far as I'm concerned, because I'm out.

Absolam · 19-05-2016 2:15am

Kenny Bania wrote: »

You all seem to find the most bizarre ways to justify yourselves being okay with it, and directly supporting it by putting money in the collection plates - that probably paid for a last-minute Ryanair flight to get Fr. Touchy McFeely out of Clane parish over to a sauna in the Vatican before the cops arrived.

Sounds like you're making stuff up again, like that crack about the Pope.

Kenny Bania · 19-05-2016 8:45am

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I don't think the Church or religious orders providing pensions, housing, private medical insurance (or anything else) to convicted paedophile priests is the same as the Pope providing them

Not sure if anyone has told you this, but the Pope is actually the leader of the church. So he could stop showing his loyalty & support to convicted paedophile priests if he wished. But he doesn't. He continues to finance them. Something you're totally fine with, and have purposefully avoided criticising.

Absolam wrote: »

Sounds like you're making stuff up again, like that crack about the Pope.

Yeah, because Fr Touchy McFeely is a real priest and that was intended as a real story - you got me, detective.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Have you actually read any of my posts in this thread Kenny? Because the post above suggests you haven't.

I've read 8 pages of you defending the worlds largest ever paedophile ring. My favourite part was this though:
"when you're saying the Church molested kids, you might as well be saying men molest kids. You're a man Kenny. Do you approve of men molesting kids then?"

Air-tight logic at work there.
Let me apply your logic to a random example: a plane went missing this morning. A plane is a thing - you're also a thing. Therefore you are missing.

Absolam · 19-05-2016 9:17am

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Not sure if anyone has told you this, but the Pope is actually the leader of the church. So he could stop showing his loyalty & support to convicted paedophile priests if he wished. But he doesn't. He continues to finance them. Something you're totally fine with, and have purposefully avoided criticising.

Not sure if anyone has told you this, but that doesn't make him the Church, any more than it makes the President Ireland. Nor have I told you what I'm fine with

You're making a heck of a lot of stuff up here......

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Yeah, because Fr Touchy McFeely is a real priest and that was intended as a real story - you got me, detective.

I knew it! I'm starting to suspect you haven't made a single honest statement in any of your posts...

Kenny Bania · 19-05-2016 9:27am

Absolam wrote: »

Nor have I told you what I'm fine with

Because you're afraid to admit it, since sympathising with paedos & their supporters is generally frowned upon. So do you support the pope or not? The guy who directly funds paedos & lets them live in the vatican city, consistently hates on gays, and in the article I posted, he stands by a French cardinal facing abuse cover-up claims. What a guy!

But is he YOUR guy? You fine with the Pope and all he represents?

Absolam wrote: »

I'm starting to suspect you haven't made a single honest statement in any of your posts...

I stated facts in every single one of my posts - substantiated facts, backed up with articles; except where I clearly made up the name of a priest called "Fr Touchy McFeely", which you seemed to think was serious & you called me on it. I understand you may be naive & gullible due to your beliefs, but I really didn't think you were that slow. "Hey - wait a second! That priest name sounds suspicious! I therefore question this story because I'm smart!!"

Absolam · 19-05-2016 9:30am

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Because you're afraid to admit it, since sympathising with paedos & their supporters is generally frowned upon.

Do you feel the need to tell everyone how they feel, or just the ones who ask you to provide evidence for your allegations?

Kenny Bania · 19-05-2016 9:41am

Absolam wrote: »

Do you feel the need to tell everyone how they feel, or just the ones who ask you to provide evidence for your allegations?

I asked you 6 times now - you've avoided answering every time.

triple nipple · 19-05-2016 9:48am

100cent wrote:

I did receive Jesus that day and have done on countless occassions since.

Did he have a big weiner?

PopePalpatine · 19-05-2016 10:24am

triple nipple wrote: »

Did he have a big weiner?

Hey, nobody f*cks with the Jesus! :P

Kenny Bania · 19-05-2016 11:36am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Hey, nobody f*cks with the Jesus! :P

True - he's a giver, not a taker.

Absolam · 19-05-2016 11:47am

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I asked you 6 times now - you've avoided answering every time.

Are you sure? Only the question in your last post was added five minutes after I replied to it. I do know this started with me asking you

Absolam wrote: »

Can you point to a specific occasion where he has defended anyone being a paedophile?

And whilst I know you tried to redirect the conversation by coming up with some question of your own, I did say

Absolam wrote: »

Let's not hurry to skip over what we're discussing to address something completely new, eh? So... how about it? Can you point to a specific occasion where the Pope has defended anyone being a paedophile?

So, if you'd like to admit you can't point to a specific occasion where the Pope has defended anyone being a paedophile I'm happy to move onto the next point, but until then I think we're still looking for an answer...

Trent Houseboat · 19-05-2016 11:59am

Serious question, can the pope just cut off convicted priests? Is papal infallibility still a thing(it came up on the Junior Cert)? Could he not just dictate that all paedophile priests are cut loose?

TheIrishGrover · 19-05-2016 12:12pm

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Are people just not aware that the Catholic Church molested 10's of 1000's of kids around the world and covered it up, or do they just not care?

Why are people cool with kids being molested, especially being parents themselves? And I believe they must be "cool" with it, otherwise why would they voluntarily choose to associate with this very same organisation.

I suspect the OP is trolling but I'll bite.

Not only that but MILLIONS of people all over the world watch football EVERY WEEK. MILLIONS!!! Knowing that thousands of people have been molested by people involved in the football industry and that this has also been covered up to various degrees.

My GOD, people even watch TELEVISION despite the fact that there were molesters in the BBC!!!!!

Do you watch television? Are YOU OK with molestation?

Do you watch football? Are YOU OK with rape?

People have their beliefs. They believe in their god, they believe in their teachings and they are followers of their religion. They do not worship rapists and molestors. They worship their god. The organization is a human one with good and bad people.

meeeeh · 19-05-2016 12:30pm

This thread is fun.

Kenny Bania · 19-05-2016 12:31pm

@ Grover - Man, you really suck at analogies. Almost as bad as One Eyed Jack.

People have their beliefs. They believe in their god, they believe in their teachings and they are followers of their religion. They do not worship rapists and molestors. They worship their god. The organization is a human one with good and bad people.

But they don't just follow their religion - they voluntarily follow & associate with the organisation too. They attend the organisation when they go to mass or rituals. They give money to the organisation. They identify as part of that organisation, whether it be on the census or similar.

I'd be fine with it if they actually separated the 2 - their faith & the RCC. But they don't. They're loyal to the organisation. As we can see here from posters such as One Eyed Jack & Absolam - they'll defend the RCC even if it means making wild claims & logical leaps. That's how indoctrinated they are. "paedos are men, and we are men - therefore we are all paedos" - this is the sort of gibberish people will actually trot out in an attempt to justify paedophilia. I asked Absolam 6 times if he supports the Pope providing pensions, housing, and private medical insurance to convicted paedophile priests - and he avoided giving an answer every time, preferring to answer the question with a question - one I already answered.

The RCC is the largest worldwide paedophile ring ever discovered. Unless you know of another, I'm open to correction... Facts are facts. There has never been a bigger organised paedophile ring than the RCC (has there???). Yet people still associate with them - as if it's all totally cool.
http://www.vatileaks.com/vati-leaks/pope-john-paul-iis-international-paedophile-ring-of-catholic-priests

Isn't is amazing though, that the decrease in catholics in this country has come about since people were given more access to information & education & freethinking & ideas - basically, since internet access increased, the number of catholics in Ireland has decreased. I expect we'll be down from the 84% in the last census too. And within 10 years religion will be out of schools - we'll see how many make their communion then, when it's not as handy and has to be done on their own time.

TheIrishGrover · 19-05-2016 1:09pm

Kenny Bania wrote: »

@ Grover - Man, you really suck at analogies. Almost as bad as One Eyed Jack.

But they don't just follow their religion - they voluntarily follow & associate with the organisation too. They attend the organisation when they go to mass or rituals. They give money to the organisation. They identify as part of that organisation, whether it be on the census or similar.

I'd be fine with it if they actually separated the 2 - their faith & the RCC. But they don't. They're loyal to the organisation. As we can see here from posters such as One Eyed Jack & Absolam - they'll defend the RCC even if it means making wild claims & logical leaps. That's how indoctrinated they are. "paedos are men, and we are men - therefore we are all paedos" - this is the sort of gibberish people will actually trot out in an attempt to justify paedophilia. I asked Absolam 6 times if he supports the Pope providing pensions, housing, and private medical insurance to convicted paedophile priests - and he avoided giving an answer every time, preferring to answer the question with a question - one I already answered.

The RCC is the largest worldwide paedophile ring ever discovered. Unless you know of another, I'm open to correction... Facts are facts. There has never been a bigger organised paedophile ring than the RCC (has there???). Yet people still associate with them - as if it's all totally cool.
http://www.vatileaks.com/vati-leaks/pope-john-paul-iis-international-paedophile-ring-of-catholic-priests

I stand by my analogy. You watch football I'm assuming, even after we see all the corruption at the highest levels. Even though it seems that every couple of weeks there are reports of assaults by footballers. You watch the sport, maybe at home, maybe in the pub or with friends, you support your team and get the strip every year or so? If so, then according to your logic, not only are you OK with their corruption and with their ignoring of the behaviour of their players, you are actively SUPPORTING this organization.

You watch television I assume even though there was an active coverup by the powers that be at the time.

Anyway, I'm assuming this is a troll thread and I've fed the troll more than I wanted.

Absolam · 19-05-2016 1:12pm

Kenny Bania wrote: »

As we can see here from posters such as One Eyed Jack & Absolam - they'll defend the RCC even if it means making wild claims & logical leaps. That's how indoctrinated they are.

Or at least, posters here will make stuff up and attribute it to other posters to make it appear that they think they have something to say

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I asked Absolam 6 times if he supports the Pope providing pensions, housing, and private medical insurance to convicted paedophile priests - and he avoided giving an answer every time, preferring to answer the question with a question - one I already answered.

You still haven't actually pointed to a specific occasion where the Pope has defended anyone being a paedophile, though. Remember? The very first question?

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Facts are facts.

Can you show us those facts please? Not wild allegations from conspiricy theorists now... facts. Like you say, facts are facts! Like the facts that demonstrate the Pope defended someone being a paedophile. No?

Kenny Bania · 19-05-2016 1:14pm

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

I stand by my analogy. You watch football I'm assuming, even after we see all the corruption at the highest levels. Even though it seems that every couple of weeks there are reports of assaults by footballers. You watch the sport, maybe at home, maybe in the pub or with friends, you support your team and get the strip every year or so? If so, then according to your logic, not only are you OK with their corruption and with their ignoring of the behaviour of their players, you are actively SUPPORTING this organization.

No, I don't watch football at all. Why assume that, and then go on to assume 10 more things after it like buying the strip, etc? You fell down at the first hurdle there.

You watch television I assume even though there was an active coverup by the powers that be at the time.

I watch TV, yeah - but who are these powers that be you refer to? Are you aware TV is a device and not an organisation? Are you referring to Samsung? Or Sky? Or RTE? Or Viacom? Sony? Panasonic? LG, perhaps? Your analogies really do suck.

And what do you mean by "at the time"? At what time? The time I was watching TV? WTF are you even trying to say here? Just spit it out. Is this something to do with Saville? Who worked for the BBC. Which is not Irish. Which I don't watch. And is also not a TV - it's an organisation. An organisation that I don't support and have never given money to.

You're out of your depth here, kid - best move along.

Kenny Bania · 19-05-2016 1:17pm

Absolam wrote: »

Can you show us those facts please? Not wild allegations from conspiricy theorists now... facts.

It's my assertion that the RCC is the largest worldwide paedophile ring ever discovered. Unless you know of another, I'm open to correction. Do you know of another? If so, just tell us - a link to an article - anything. Or you can avoid that question, which seems to be a knack of yours.

And I see you're still avoiding the main question I've asked you 7 times now re your support for King Paedo himself - a simple question that you can't seem to answer.

TheIrishGrover · 19-05-2016 1:36pm

Don't feed the troll, folks

GT_TDI_150 · 19-05-2016 1:46pm

In my opinion and i dont participate in any relegion.... maki g your communion is 1000 time safer than going to rugby training.

Ive no problem with my kids making their communion/confirmation (missus will want it)but i'll do all i can to make sure they dont end up playing rugby...

Not alledging peodophillia at rugby clubs by the way ... brain injuries / repeat concussions scare the crap out of me

lazygal · 19-05-2016 1:47pm

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

In my opinion and i dont participate in any relegion.... maki g your communion is 1000 time safer than going to rugby training.

Ive no problem with my kids making their communion/confirmation (missus will want it)but i'll do all i can to make sure they dont end up playing rugby...

Emmmm ok. Thanks for the heads up.

TheExile1878 · 19-05-2016 1:50pm

Kenny Bania wrote: »

It's my assertion that the RCC is the largest worldwide paedophile ring ever discovered. Unless you know of another, I'm open to correction. Do you know of another? If so, just tell us - a link to an article - anything. Or you can avoid that question, which seems to be a knack of yours.

And I see you're still avoiding the main question I've asked you 7 times now re your support for King Paedo himself - a simple question that you can't seem to answer.

King Paedo ?

If you mean the Holy Father you're a disrespectful gob****e.

Kenny Bania · 19-05-2016 1:55pm

TheExile1878 wrote: »

King Paedo ?

If you mean the Holy Father you're a disrespectful gob****e.

He's not my father - he may be yours - could very well be, in fact.

But yeah - King Paedo - the leader of the world largest paedophile ring. Do you know of a larger paedophile ring? If not, then the title fits Francis for now.

Correct me where I'm wrong, by all means. I welcome it. If you know of a larger paedophile ring, I'll retract my statement & apologise for calling him King Paedo. Larger paedophile ring than the RCC - anyone know of any?? Anyone?

TheExile1878 · 19-05-2016 1:56pm

Kenny Bania wrote: »

He's not my father - he may be yours - could very well be, in fact.

But yeah - King Paedo - the leader of the world largest paedophile ring. Do you know of a larger paedophile ring? If not, then the title fits Francis for now.

Correct me where I'm wrong, by all means. I welcome it. If you know of a larger paedophile ring, I'll retract my statement & apologise for calling him King Paedo. Larger paedophile ring than the RCC - anyone know of any?? Anyone?

You and your mates possibly ?

Or right, silly me - you clearly spend all your days alone under a bridge.

Kenny Bania · 19-05-2016 1:58pm

TheExile1878 wrote: »

You and your mates possibly ?

I'd have to have 1000's of mates for that to even be possible. Want to try again?

TheExile1878 · 19-05-2016 1:59pm

Kenny Bania wrote: »

I'd have to have 1000's of mates for that to even be possible. Want to try again?

Sarcasm not your strong suit clearly.

1000's of kids making their communion today

Comments