Riots/Police/Social Justice Issues

[Iron MikeyJ]

6 minutes ago, Dazey said:

A report published in 2002 showed that approximately 4.3% of catholic priests over the previous 50 years had been habitually fucking kids. The leadership covered it up and refused to report them to the authorities. I'm guessing  we can expect Mikey's rosary in the mail pretty soon?   

Well, the CHURCH is the people, not the leaders. I KNEW you would go here Dazey, you always do. 

[downzy]

Just now, Iron MikeyJ said:

Well, the CHURCH is the people, not the leaders

So with BLM, the movement is the leaders, not the people?  

[Dazey]

Just now, Iron MikeyJ said:

Well, the CHURCH is the people, not the leaders. I KNEW you would go here Dazey, you always do. 

So it's the people when we're bumming choir boys but the leaders when we're protesting racial injustice? Right. Gotcha.

[Iron MikeyJ]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

So with BLM, the movement is the leaders, not the people?  

When you have radical leaders, you create radical followers. As Dazey pointed out the Catholic church had 4.3 corrupt priests in 50 years. BLM has had 7% violence in a little over 100 days. But you say it's only a few... Food for thought.

[Dazey]

Just now, Iron MikeyJ said:

The Catholic church had 4.3% corrupt priests in 50 years. BLM has had 7% violence in a little over 100 days. 

I'm not sure that statistic is on your side in the way you think it is. 

[soon]

2014 was, after all, only 100 days ago

[downzy]

5 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

When you have radical leaders, you create radical followers. As Dazey pointed out the Catholic church had 4.3 corrupt priests in 50 years. BLM has had 7% violence in a little over 100 days. But you say it's only a few... Food for thought.

Read @Dazey’s post again.

Pretty sure a third of one priest wasn’t abusing kids.

Also re-read the BLM statistic. 7 percent of protests became violent; not 7 percent of protestors. 

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

Read @Dazey’s post again.

Pretty sure a third of one priest wasn’t abusing kids.

Also re-read the BLM statistic. 7 percent of protests became violent; not 7 percent of protestors. 

Maybe he was only a third of a priest due to some deep seated emotional issues. That may explain why he could only get it up for little boys?  

[downzy]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

Maybe he was only a third of a priest due to some deep seated emotional issues. That may explain why he could only get it up for little boys?  

?

[Iron MikeyJ]

What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand. I believe I got suspended for "taking a thread off topic." More examples of Downzys complete abuse of power.

[downzy]

10 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand. I believe I got suspended for "taking a thread off topic." More examples of Downzys complete abuse of power.

You said that in the last 50 years the Catholic Church only had 4.3 corrupt priests.  @Dazey and I are trying to figure out what a third of a priest looks like. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

10 minutes ago, downzy said:

You said that in the last 50 years the Catholic Church only had 4.3 corrupt priests.  @Dazey and I are trying to figure out what a third of a priest looks like. 

I forgot to add the %... Geez.

[Dazey]

5 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I forgot to add the %... Geez.

My point was more that you seemed to imply that 7% for 100 days was worse than 4% for 50 years.

[downzy]

7 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

I forgot to add the %... Geez.

But 4.3 percent of priests is still a lot of priests for an organization that claims the moral leadership of the entire human race. 

Once again, you’re missing the point. You make excuses for organizations and leaders you don’t have a problem with but impugn an entire movement based on the actions of a very small minority. You’re employing arbitrary and capricious evaluations that are devoid at even the hint of consistency. 

[Iron MikeyJ]

2 minutes ago, downzy said:

But 4.3 percent of priests is still a lot of priests for an organization that claims the moral leadership of the entire human race. 

Once again, you’re missing the point. You make excuses for organizations and leaders you don’t have a problem with but impugn an entire movement based on the actions of a very small minority. You’re employing arbitrary and capricious evaluations that are devoid at even the hint of consistency. 

The leaders of the church don't condone that behavior, that's the difference. I'm not saying that excuses the behavior, just like (I'm sure) you don't condone the rioters behavior. The Catholic Church is 100% against the behavior of these priests. I know someone is going to say "they covered it up." But that's not the truth. The truth is, they had to protect the sanctity of confession. Whether you agree with it or not, but that is something that is a grave sin if a priest breaks the sanctity of confession. Kinda like doctor patient confidentiality. So even the innocent priest that knew, were forbidden to discuss it. You can't expect people to go against their religion, even for purposes that seem worthy. That holds true for all religions, not just catholicism. So it wasn't this massive "cover up" it was about protecting the sanctity of confession. But I'm sure you won't understand this. Plus the media never talked about this side of it either. 

 

As for BLM, their leaders are very troubling. No matter how you spin it, that fact remains. 

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

The leaders of the church don't condone that behavior, that's the difference. I'm not saying that excuses the behavior, just like (I'm sure) you don't condone the rioters behavior. The Catholic Church is 100% against the behavior of these priests.

Well, 95.7% at best.  

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

Another fine example of how wooden your thinking is on the topic.

You're taking the words of a few and applying it to a grass roots movement that doesn't take its cues from any one person.  Do honestly think that of the tens of millions who marched in support of the movement that more than 0.1 percent could name one of the leaders you referenced?

As others have pointed out, the fanatical and deranged can be found in any movement, group or association.  It should not to anyone who views these issues without a cynical attitude denigrate the cause or the spirit of the movement.  

Again, you take the most superficial aspects of a movement that has sought to respond to police brutality directed towards one particular group of people as a means of denigrating it.  And you wonder why I have no qualms with calling you a racist.  

An erroneous and disingenuous description of Black Lives Matter, re-constructing their origin away from a series of well publicized and prominent progenitors and organisations with the obvious intent to offload the demonstrable wretchedness of the entire thing onto them whilst depicting an untarnished ''movement''. I can speak with greater authority on Britain's where Sasha Johnson is certainly known and could be named - indeed, she is highly active on Twitter and has just launched a political party. That twitter feed has been directing most of the activity.

In reality Black Lives Matter was founded 2013 by Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi and Alicia Garza in the wake of the Zimmerman acquittal. There was no grassroots movement before they founded Black Lives Matter Network. The grassroots movement does not precede the Network but succeeds the Network. 

[Dazey]

2 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

The truth is, they had to protect the sanctity of confession. Whether you agree with it or not, but that is something that is a grave sin if a priest breaks the sanctity of confession. Kinda like doctor patient confidentiality. So even the innocent priest that knew, were forbidden to discuss it. You can't expect people to go against their religion, even for purposes that seem worthy. That holds true for all religions, not just catholicism. So it wasn't this massive "cover up" it was about protecting the sanctity of confession.

What a load of fucking bollocks! 

[Iron MikeyJ]

Again, what does this have to do with the topic at hand? This is why I stopped posting here. No matter what topic I was in, Day and a few others ALWAYS turned it into a religious discussion. Yet I got suspended for taking a thread off topic.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, Dazey said:

A report published in 2002 showed that approximately 4.3% of catholic priests over the previous 50 years had been habitually fucking kids. The leadership covered it up and refused to report them to the authorities. I'm guessing  we can expect Mikey's rosary in the mail pretty soon?   

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/4/17767744/catholic-child-clerical-sex-abuse-priest-pope-francis-crisis-explained

Oh no! This is low even for your standards! 

The LEFT people. This is the left, well a gnr forum example of it. Look at them shine. Aren't they wonderful? These are the heirs of liberalism (free speech/religious toleration) and socialism (worker's rights/living standards). Look at them live up to their ancestors' creeds. 

(I think I was wrong to give them that reprieve earlier!).

[DieselDaisy]

How does one determine the percentage of protests being ''peaceful'' (or otherwise)?

Do you poll the participants ex post facto? Police call-outs - well most of the footage show incidents happening without a police presence? What is the criteria for determining whether a protest was ''peaceful'' or violent? The innocent diners were being verbally, not physically assaulted - would those be included or omitted? Technically the toppling of a statue is criminal damage so is this included? 

It is almost like those polls which claim ''70% of women fake orgasms'' haha. You wonder how this data was acquired?

[soon]

28 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The LEFT people. This is the left, well a gnr forum example of it. Look at them shine. Aren't they wonderful? These are the heirs of liberalism (free speech/religious toleration) and socialism (worker's rights/living standards). Look at them live up to their ancestors' creeds.

So what you're saying is that I meet all your requirements to be the Lefts poster child?

[downzy]

37 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

The leaders of the church don't condone that behavior, that's the difference. I'm not saying that excuses the behavior, just like (I'm sure) you don't condone the rioters behavior. The Catholic Church is 100% against the behavior of these priests. I know someone is going to say "they covered it up." But that's not the truth. The truth is, they had to protect the sanctity of confession.

If you truly believe that Church leadership was moving around hundreds of abusive priests solely because of the concern for the sanctity of confession, then man alive, I really don't have anything to say that would make the slightest difference.  I mean, I could point to the fact that many of the allegations of abuse did not come through confessions by the priests but admissions from the abused, but you probably wouldn't care about any of that.

39 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Kinda like doctor patient confidentiality.

Doctor-patient confidentiality does not preclude a doctor from reporting abuse.  In most developed nations it is required by law for doctors to report instances of abuse to authorities.

42 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

So even the innocent priest that knew, were forbidden to discuss it.

Even if that were true, wouldn't that underscore how complicit the organization is if formal rules preclude the organization from doing fuck all about saving kids?

43 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

You can't expect people to go against their religion, even for purposes that seem worthy.

When it comes to stoping dicks from entering into kids, yeah, I kind of expect people - especially those who claim moral authority - to do the right thing.  Amazing you don't.

43 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

As for BLM, their leaders are very troubling. No matter how you spin it, that fact remains. 

Right, so a handful of BLM leaders espouse some political philosophy that you don't agree with (and I would argue don't fully comprehend), so let's denigrate the entire movement.  The spirit that drove tens of millions to protest, that's corrupted because a handful of self anointed leaders said something you disagree with.

Never mind the Catholic leadership who looked past systemic abuses of kids.  That couldn't be helped.  We shouldn't taint fellow Catholics for the failures of their leaders and organizational shortcomings.  But with BLM, fuck 'em.  They talk commie.  

[downzy]

45 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

In reality Black Lives Matter was founded 2013 by Patrisse Cullors, Opal Tometi and Alicia Garza in the wake of the Zimmerman acquittal. There was no grassroots movement before they founded Black Lives Matter Network. The grassroots movement does not precede the Network but succeeds the Network. 

How do you think most grass roots movements are started?  What do you think a grass roots movement even is?  

Moreover, if you're capable of differentiating the movement from the organization as you seem to do so in this post, why is the movement defined by a few people that sit at the top?  If the movement has succeeded the network, then why conflate the two?  

45 minutes ago, Iron MikeyJ said:

Again, what does this have to do with the topic at hand? This is why I stopped posting here. No matter what topic I was in, Day and a few others ALWAYS turned it into a religious discussion. Yet I got suspended for taking a thread off topic.

What suspension?  

[downzy]

9 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

How does one determine the percentage of protests being ''peaceful'' (or otherwise)?

# of violent protests ÷ # of protests total = % of violent protests.