NationStates

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:08 pm**

Abatael wrote:This is what I said concerning that, "It has supreme, independent authority over the geographic area."

So, they are supreme authority in area.

Abatael wrote:That seems rather illogical.

How is not protecting child rapists illogical?

Abatael wrote:Being sent to prison and punished for doing the right thing is persecution.

Protecting child rapists is not doing the right thing.

Abatael wrote:They are being mistreated, because they refuse to disobey God.

No, because they are in contempt of court and therefore in violation of national law.

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:08 pm**

Wisconsin9 wrote:
Abatael wrote:
Where do you get these definitions from?

You're one to talk, you freely admit you've been pulling them out of your ass.

There goes your voice of reason label.

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:09 pm**

The Emerald Dawn wrote:
Wisconsin9 wrote:You're one to talk, you freely admit you've been pulling them out of your ass.

There goes your voice of reason label.

Well, he did.

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:09 pm**

Wisconsin9 wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:There goes your voice of reason label.

Well, he did.

I didn't say you were wrong. Just that the whole "disengage" thing kinda flew the coop there.

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:11 pm**

The Emerald Dawn wrote:
Wisconsin9 wrote:Well, he did.

I didn't say you were wrong. Just that the whole "disengage" thing kinda flew the coop there.

I'm done arguing the point, but when he blatantly contradicts himself without a second thought, I am damn well going to point it out.

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:11 pm**

Wisconsin9 wrote:
Abatael wrote:
Where do you get these definitions from?

You're one to talk, you freely admit you've been pulling them out of your ass.

Where?

Great Nepal wrote:
Abatael wrote:This is what I said concerning that, "It has supreme, independent authority over the geographic area."

So, they are supreme authority in area.

Abatael wrote:That seems rather illogical.

How is not protecting child rapists illogical?

Abatael wrote:Being sent to prison and punished for doing the right thing is persecution.

Protecting child rapists is not doing the right thing.

Abatael wrote:They are being mistreated, because they refuse to disobey God.

No, because they are in contempt of court and therefore in violation of national law.

You are not protecting children: You are disobeying God, and you are betraying the penitent.

Simply because it is in accord with national law, does not make it moral.

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:12 pm**

Wisconsin9 wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:I didn't say you were wrong. Just that the whole "disengage" thing kinda flew the coop there.

I'm done arguing the point, but when he blatantly contradicts himself without a second thought, I am damn well going to point it out.

Where have I done this?

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:12 pm**

Abatael wrote:
Wisconsin9 wrote:You're one to talk, you freely admit you've been pulling them out of your ass.

Where?

Abatael wrote:I don't care if the dictionary were to explicitly say

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:13 pm**

Wisconsin9 wrote:
Abatael wrote:
Where?

Abatael wrote:I don't care if the dictionary were to explicitly say

That is not pulling it out of my ass, as you say. That would mean the dictionary is incorrect.

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:13 pm**

Abatael wrote:
Ganos Lao wrote:
If the Catholic Church listened to guys like Gerald Fitzgerald, we wouldn't be in this problem.

Please, just say if that is incorrect or correct, according to your beliefs.

I've told you my beliefs already.

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:14 pm**

Ganos Lao wrote:
Abatael wrote:
Please, just say if that is incorrect or correct, according to your beliefs.

I've told you my beliefs already.

So you are refusing to tell me if it is incorrect or correct, according to your beliefs?

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:14 pm**

Abatael wrote:
Wisconsin9 wrote:

That is not pulling it out of my ass, as you say. That would mean the dictionary is incorrect.

No, that is you admitting you're willing to pull a definition out of your ass, and then calling someone else out on possibly doing the same thing.

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:16 pm**

Wisconsin9 wrote:
Abatael wrote:
That is not pulling it out of my ass, as you say. That would mean the dictionary is incorrect.

No, that is you admitting you're willing to pull a definition out of your ass, and then calling someone else out on possibly doing the same thing.

So, if the dictionary defines cow as, "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically," it is correct and for me to say the definition provided is incorrect or provide a different definition such as, "The mature female of cattle of the genus Bos," is pulling a definition out of my ass?

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:16 pm**

Abatael wrote:You are not protecting children:

I am sure not letting child rapist roam free is protecting children.

Abatael wrote:You are disobeying God, and you are betraying the penitent.

Means jackshit.

Abatael wrote:Simply because it is in accord with national law, does not make it moral.

No, it makes it legal.
And, the fact that it stops child rapist and protects children makes it moral.
Oh, look its legal and moral.

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:17 pm**

Abatael wrote:
Wisconsin9 wrote:No, that is you admitting you're willing to pull a definition out of your ass, and then calling someone else out on possibly doing the same thing.

So, if the dictionary defines cow as, "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically," it is correct and for me to say it is incorrect or provide a different definition such as, "The mature female of cattle of the genus Bos," is pulling a definition out of my ass?

...Well played.

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:18 pm**

Abatael wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:You're posting to make yourself look like an asshole? Because that's what you're managing. In what way is it more important to protect the sinner than the child?

No, I am posting to defend what is right. As I have said before, I do not care what others think of me, when it comes to this.

It seems we're all on the same level, then. We can't possibly change your opinion. You can't possibly change ours. We don't give half a fuck what you think is moral. You don't give half a fuck what we think is moral. This is going to keep spiraling until one side ends up going nuclear on the other and the banhammer gets swung. So let's all just admit that this argument is absolutely fucking futile for all parties and go our separate ways, alright?

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:19 pm**

Great Nepal wrote:
Abatael wrote:You are not protecting children:

I am sure not letting child rapist roam free is protecting children.

Abatael wrote:You are disobeying God, and you are betraying the penitent.

Means jackshit.

Abatael wrote:Simply because it is in accord with national law, does not make it moral.

No, it makes it legal.
And, the fact that it stops child rapist and protects children makes it moral.
Oh, look its legal and moral.

Yes, being legal does not make it right.
It is not legal and moral to violate the Seal. It is legal alone.

Wisconsin9 wrote:
Abatael wrote:
So, if the dictionary defines cow as, "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically," it is correct and for me to say it is incorrect or provide a different definition such as, "The mature female of cattle of the genus Bos," is pulling a definition out of my ass?

...Well played.

Is that sarcasm?

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:20 pm**

Abatael wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:I am sure not letting child rapist roam free is protecting children.

Means jackshit.

No, it makes it legal.
And, the fact that it stops child rapist and protects children makes it moral.
Oh, look its legal and moral.

Yes, being legal does not make it right.
It is not legal and moral to violate the Seal. It is legal alone.

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:21 pm**

Abatael wrote:
Wisconsin9 wrote:...Well played.

Is that sarcasm?

Nope. It was a good retort.

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:23 pm**

Great Nepal wrote:
Abatael wrote:
Yes, being legal does not make it right.
It is not legal and moral to violate the Seal. It is legal alone.

Look, I can do the same thing.

But I will not continue to do so.

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:27 pm**

Abatael wrote:
Great Nepal wrote:

Look, I can do the same thing.

But I will not continue to do so.

Being legal doesn't make it right however stopping child rapist and protecting children makes it right.
Not difficult concept, now is it?

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:27 pm**

Abatael, where can I find info on this seal or penitent you speak so highly of? Please post a link so I can learn more.

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:28 pm**

Great Nepal wrote:
Abatael wrote:
Look, I can do the same thing.

But I will not continue to do so.

Being legal doesn't make it right however stopping child rapist and protecting children makes it right.
Not difficult concept, now is it?

It may incarcerate a child rapist, but that benefit is far outweighed, when the Seal is broken.

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:28 pm**

Abatael wrote:
Ganos Lao wrote:
I've told you my beliefs already.

So you are refusing to tell me if it is incorrect or correct, according to your beliefs?

In 1957 Fitzgerald wrote to the bishop of Manchester, New Hampshire:

"We are amazed to find how often a man who would be behind bars if he were not a priest is entrusted with the cura animarum."

You'll find Fitzgerald wrote plenty of material about the problem of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Guys like him seem to have been ignored, though, and that leads to my point.

I've told you already my beliefs on this issue - this isn't about the seal to me. It's about the Catholic Church stuck in the mess it - and it alone - created, a mess that didn't have to be created. I am pretty certain that most of the cases documented were not heard of by other priests in the confessional, but that public outrage propelled the Catholic Church to deal with the situation. And what did they do? They sent them to other churches, as if nothing ever happened, rather than do the right thing. Now we're in 2012, and we're dealing with Australia considering prying open the seal of the confessional. And I am here saying one thing:

Why?

Why did it have to get to this point in the first place?

Posted: **Tue Nov 20, 2012 4:29 pm**

Thisbia wrote:Abatael, where can I find info on this seal or penitent you speak so highly of? Please post a link so I can learn more.

Is there something specific you wanted to know?

NationStates

Roman Catholic Priests to be violated in Australia