The Connecticut Catholic bishops have issued a dire warning to the faithful that a proposal to lift the statute of limitations for victims of Church abuse to sue would threaten their very religion, putting “all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk,” .
The Bishops warned that the right to sue “would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities.”
Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to sue the Church.
The bill has some novel provisions. For example, anyone older than 48 who makes a sex abuse claim against the church would need to join an existing claim filed by someone 48 or younger. Older claimants would need to show substantial proof that they were abused. That itself raises some questions about the disparate treatment given victims. I have never seen such a provision in legislation.
For the full story, click here
And as for the “whining”?
You sit here for days demanding I only present my opinions in your stupid framework, then when you finally get it that I actually offered an alternative concept to deal with, you demand I keep restating it, reprinting it, re-summarizing it, etc.
So yes, I sure as hell am whining pal. Tired of your weaseling out of confronting my positions by constantly trying to “wear me out” (come on, 3 days? this has to be a record of some sort) by demanding I restate, reprint, re-summarize, over and over and over.
Both of the comments you are FINALLY getting around to addressing, were made BACK ON MONDAY.
So pardon me if I don’t genuflect every time you demand I reprint the same damned thing so your superior intellect can grasp it.
Byron 1, April 14, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Cherry picking events to suit your needs to find yet ANOTHER diversion to avoid addressing the logic both you and Slarti pretended I didn’t address won’t cut it.
He called me ignorant on several occasions, and even when so far as finding a TYPO in another thread to bring in here to laud over me as if that in any way had any impact on THIS discussion. It did not. It was just one more attempt of his to elevate himself to some lofty level of intellectual superiority over me by hunting down and parading any grammatical errors I make. I’ve seen people correct peoples grammar before IN a discussion.
But I’ve never known someone to go hunt down errors in another thread, then bring them into another one to laud over the person like some cyber English teacher or something.
No one can argue that wasn’t an attempt to belittle me.
And he was belittling me from the start. Remember, he STARTED OUT calling me ignorant. He also claimed I was other people whom I don’t know and who apparently constitute an insult.
So you can stick your two bits worth about what someone else meant or said or did, back up your butt where they belong.
Let Slarti defend his own comments and you worry about yours asshole.
Slartibartfast 1, April 14, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Byron,
I think that you can make that three. 😉
gonesville,
If you were talking about these issues:
What about it? If man is indeed a free agent, to rule on earth as he sees fit, then a God controlling his actions would preclude that free agency.
How does saving the hypothetical child that I was talking about preclude its free will?
***************************************
Well Smarti, once again we’re back to square one.
In your typical, dense fashion you again proceed to ignore the positions I made, and pretend I did not make them.
Two days ago, I address THAT part of the topic as well.
And again I now have to scroll up myself, find it, reprint it because you’re too busy pretending I did not.
So now not only do you move the goal posts away from the FIRST logic I gave you to deal with, something you’re not dealing with but merely acknowledging (after 2 days of stonewalling) but now I have to go back and reprint my comments from days earlier for you so you can’t sell your lies that I did not address them.
So here you go.
For the ten millionth time.
*****************************************************
goneville-n-keys 1, April 12, 2010 at 9:02 pm
********************************************************
And I answered you. What I said is what I meant. And no, I didn’t say anything about God’s love or punishing people.
I said that when a natural disaster occurs, …..a natural disaster occurs.
When someone mugs you, then someone mugs you.
When someone dies, then someone dies.
These are all either natural acts or actions we instigate. Not a God, or gods but us and the environment in which we live. Jesus explained this to us but no one wants to hear it, not Christians, agnostics or atheists it seems. But its a simple concept.
In Matthew 5:45 Jesus tells us “for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.”.
So we see Jesus told us that life happens. We have to deal with it. There’s a natural randomness to it that everyone must deal with, like it or not. That doesn’t mean he is malevolent, and it doesn’t mean he doesn’t care. The concept is he made things the way they are and its up to us to learn to deal with them.
**********************************************************
There you go.
Something you could have addressed days ago when I said it, rather than pretending for two days that I did not.
Byron 1, April 14, 2010 at 6:40 pm
goneville:
I am pretty sure I have not attacked you personally on this thread and as far as I can tell Slarti only called you ignorant in particular not in general terms and then he said that everyone is ignorant in some aspect. Which would be a true statement.
So how is that attacking you?
***************************************
Cherry picking events to suit your needs to find yet ANOTHER diversion to avoid addressing the logic both you and Slarti pretended I didn’t address won’t cut it.
He called me ignorant on several occasions, and even when so far as finding a TYPO in another thread to bring in here to laud over me as if that in any way had any impact on THIS discussion. It did not. It was just one more attempt of his to elevate himself to some lofty level of intellectual superiority over me by hunting down and parading any grammatical errors I make. I’ve seen people correct peoples grammar before IN a discussion.
But I’ve never known someone to go hunt down errors in another thread, then bring them into another one to laud over the person like some cyber English teacher or something.
No one can argue that wasn’t an attempt to belittle me.
And he was belittling me from the start. Remember, he STARTED OUT calling me ignorant. He also claimed I was other people whom I don’t know and who apparently constitute an insult.
So you can stick your two bits worth about what someone else meant or said or did, back up your butt where they belong.
Let Slarti defend his own comments and you worry about yours.
Byron 1, April 14, 2010 at 6:48 pm
Goneville:
I went back and reread everyone of my posts above, I did not say anything that could even be construed as an attack.
******************************
Liar
***************************************
Sorry, I had a goonville moment
Goneville:
I went back and reread everyone of my posts above, I did not say anything that could even be construed as an attack.
Byron,
I think that you can make that three. 😉
gonesville,
If you were talking about these issues:
As you can see, I addressed them. If you were talking about something else, repost it (without the whining, please) and I will address it.
goneville:
I am pretty sure I have not attacked you personally on this thread and as far as I can tell Slarti only called you ignorant in particular not in general terms and then he said that everyone is ignorant in some aspect. Which would be a true statement.
So how is that attacking you?
Bdaman even went so far as to say that you are a very intelligent guy and I agree and I dont think Gyges or Slarti would disagree with that statement. They just think your logic is flawed on a particular issue.
Slarti:
“I suspect that some of the people reading think that I am arrogant, condescending, pedantic, dry, pompous, overly verbose, boring, professorial and many other things.”
I can think of at least one (over on the 9/11 thread) 🙂
Again, I thought so.
When confronted with logic they could not refute, Gyges stormed off like a baby who couldn’t have his way, and his road groupie Slarti takes over, and spends two days attacking my intelligence and placing himself in some lofty position over me by parading his claims to a PHD in math. As if that had anything to do with anything.
Two days ago I presented this position. And for two days, this being the third, both Slarti and Byron and their rodeo mascot Bdamen have been playing games, attacking me with personal insults on my intelligence, calling me other people I don’t even know, and desperately doing whatever they could to avoid having to confront one, simple piece of logic that I presented them with.
So run. Run away, distract. Launch personal attacks. Accuse me of being everybody under the sun. It won’t work.
Because I posed a logic question to all of you, that not one of you has bothered to address.
And you’ve been lying ever since pretending that I didn’t pose the conundrum, by ignoring it and claiming I did not. Well I did. Back on MONDAY. When this discussion first began.
And there it is for all to see.
So when you can address my ORIGINAL point, let me know. Until then your dodging and diversions and personal attacks are just more evidence of how weak your debating skills are.
goneville posted:
goneville:
lets move on to another discussion. You pick the topic this time so you wont have to defend something you don’t want to.
got any ideas?
Yea.
I thought so.
Just like two days ago when I presented this counter to your Epicurus logic out comes the false accusations, personal attacks and distractions.
Won’t work.
The question stood two days ago when we first started discussing this and it stands now.
And your rodeo clown here isn’t going to distract from it.
Either deal with my counter to Gyge’s Epicurus logic or don’t.
But false accusations and distractions are just an admission of defeat.
30%er, I mean Gerty, my bad Jacob Marley just get over it and move on to the next. Why do you have to always revert back to having conversations with yourself. Didn’t you learn the first time.
Look when you reinvent your new nom de plume, stop coping and pasting the questions like you do. It’s a dead give away and everyone here knows it. You are such an intelligent person and personally I like you.
The irony here is of course the pompousness of pretending to be some superior logical genius by lecturing endlessly on the “theorem” or “paradox” presented by Epicurus.
Yet not one of these intellectual logic wizards noted the irony of the logic conundrum I presented them based on the doctrine of free will.
See how they carefully danced over that and instead spent two days lecturing me on how ignorant I was with regards to logic.
Well, I gave them a logic problem to counter Epicurus.
Explain how one can have “free will” if God stops them each time they get ready to do something bad to someone.
Explain that logic man.
I only asked you the question 2 days ago.
And I made my position clear based on the doctrines from the New Testament, back on MONDAY, at 1 in the afternoon.
******************************
goneville-n-keys 1, April 12, 2010 at 1:51 pm
What about it? If man is indeed a free agent, to rule on earth as he sees fit, then a God controlling his actions would preclude that free agency.
********************************************
So please.
Not one person here has bothered to address my position.
Instead Slarti and Byron keep rephrasing it (and Bdaman plays their rodeo clown, or is it clone?) and then demanding I respond only on their terms.
So enough.
There’s my positions as I originally presented them two days ago Slarti. So enough with the pretense.
Deal with them. Don’t deal with them. But pretending I didn’t make them by constantly moving the goal posts (like trying to compel me to defend or denounce the Catholic doctrine of original sin), or asking me to constantly reprint or rephrase my positions so your “superior intellect” can absorb them, is ludicrous.
I presented my reasoning two days ago, and either address it or declare victory and end it.
I won’t keep placating to your nonsense.
This one was yesterday, at 8 in the evening.
***************************************************
goneville-n-keys 1, April 13, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Slarti, now listen good, ok?
I made it clear repeatedly last night, that I do not have a God in this fight. I made it perfectly clear that I am not, nor would I ever DARE to pretend to try to convince someone else of the existence, or nature of a God. Any God.
I made it perfectly clear that I was simply correcting the record with regards to the Christian God as taught by Jesus, in the New Testament.
***************************************************
So please.
Enough with your after the fact “wrap ups” and rewriting of history.
My comments were plain and clear.
But Slarti is so busy showing off his PHD in math, as if that had a role here, and Byron is so busy playing Slarti’s second that no one has bothered to actually “READ” what I wrote.
So yes. I’m the only one being honest in this discussion about what was said.
This comment was TWO days ago, at 6 in the evening.
****************************************************
goneville-n-keys 1, April 12, 2010 at 6:27 pm
I never said what I believed, nor did I make the assumption that there is a God, nor do I argue that you should believe in one. You should first ask someone what they believe, prior to summarizing their beliefs.
****************************************************
This was two days ago.
And today we see people pretending that I am a “believer”.
So yes.
I’m the only one here so far that’s actually being honest in this discussion about what was said.
Out of the two of us, I’m the only one expressing their opinion in clear, easy to understand unshrouded terms.
Thats your opinion 🙂
p.s. Regarding your comment on the ‘birther’ thread: omnipresent means everywhere at once. I think you meant omniscient.
******************************************
Oh gee, thanks for adding that to this discussion to confirm your only goal is to label me ignorant. Yes, that was a typo. I see them here all the time.
Thanks for adding another discussions comments to this one.
We didn’t have enough convoluted confusion already.