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
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 3:34 am
What Gyges is doing by putting this logic out there is to force you to define your argument
**********************************
Yes.
By his own predefined parameters.
goneville,
I’ve looked at the three pertinent posts by Gyges and I’m going to give you my interpretation of what he meant and its logical implication (Gyges, if I’m wrong or misrepresent you in any way, please let me know). I’ll assume for purposes of this discussion that you accept the rules of logic (i.e. options (c) and (d) in my previous post are off the table).
While I in no way intend to be condescending in this post, I know that I can be pedantic at times and I ask you to bear with me – as someone trained as a mathematician I feel that it is important to carefully (and formally) define things when beginning an argument* and I think that if we both get on the same page initially, this discussion will be much more productive.
*Argument in the line of reasoning sense, not the fight sense.
Gyges posted:
Logically speaking what does this mean? Let
A = God is willing to prevent evil
B = God is able to prevent evil
C = God is omnipotent
D = God is malevolent
E = There is evil in the world
and
F = God is a pussy 😉
I break down what Epicurus is saying thusly:
1) If A (and) (not)B then (not)C
2) If (not)A (and) B then D
3) If A (and) B then (not)E
4) If (not)A (and) (not)B then F
What Gyges is doing by putting this logic out there is to force you to define your argument. First, you have to either accept or reject each of these logical statements – if you reject any of them, then you are forced to give an argument as to why the statement you reject is false to which Gyges can respond with a counter argument (presumably aided by his knowledge of Epicurus). If you accept all of these statements then you are constrained in the characteristics that you can assign to God – for instance, if you admit that there is evil in the world (hard not to do given the topic of the thread), then you cannot say that God is both willing and able to prevent evil which forces you to admit that either God is not omnipotent or God is malevolent or God is a pussy. As you can see, logically speaking, you must either choose between the three types of God that Gyges presented you with or refute one or more of his statements. No matter which course you decide to take, you have narrowed the field of the argument and Gyges can choose which tools of his will be most effective in making the point he wishes to make – which seems to be to address the validity of what he sees as your three basic assumptions* – more specifically, I think he is interested in arguing that free will does not require a choice between good and evil. I hope that this has helped to clarify things.
*That there is a god; That this god wants us to have free will; That in order to have free will, one must have a good and an evil to choose from.
Gyges,
Did I get it right?
goneville,
No character lecture or insulting your intelligence, just a discussion about logic. And as for speed chess, I favor double bughouse. Have a good night and I will have provided you with some reading material by morning.
And PS, I’m sure its not, but just in case this is some sort of personal character lecture or more insulting of my intelligence rather than information and facts then please don’t bother.
I’m not interested in you, just what you have to say and the positions you have to make. I’m sure you feel the same so please excuse the caution but I had to point that out given your earlier remarks. I’m sure you understand.
Goodnite.
Well really Slarti, it wasn’t an apology as much as just admitting that you were demanding I refute something I wasn’t really asked to refute.
I was asked to select from positions he had chosen and defend one, which naturally I or no one in their right mind would do unless they agreed with one of them.
As far as needing to take all night to write a response, ok but I’m glad we’re not playing chess. I play with time limits, lol
nite
goneville,
I’ll post before I go to bed tonight on both threads and will answer any response tomorrow. If you still think you are owed an apology I will give you one or explain why I don’t think that I have said anything that I need to apologize for, okay?
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 12:39 am
goneville,
I’ll explain what I mean, but you need to give me a chance to do it – I try to put a lot of thought into these posts so they don’t necessarily come quickly… Your enthusiasm does you credit, but it wont speed up my response.
**********************************
Sorry, guess I didn’t plan on waiting for the book to come out.
And actually it wasn’t really Epicurus’ positions of the three, but his interpretation of it. At least that’s how he presented it.
The fact is I did post an alternative but you for some reason are overlooking that. The alternative I posted was from the New Testament, and who was absent, but not morally neutral.
And I pointed out exactly how that possibility could exist.
Something you never bothered to address or even acknowledge that I had done.
Anyway I guess I’ll shut up and wait for the seminar.
goneville,
I’ll explain what I mean, but you need to give me a chance to do it – I try to put a lot of thought into these posts so they don’t necessarily come quickly… Your enthusiasm does you credit, but it wont speed up my response.
You get it now?
You demanded over and over I refute Epicurus’ position.
You claimed he presented them so I must refute them.
But he wasn’t “presenting them”.
He himself was refuting them.
Don’t you get that Slarti?
Look, you took a couple of potshots at me and that’s cool, but I expect you to at least own up to your own mistakes then. That’s only fair, right?
I own up to mine. I mistook something Mepso had said as critical of me and I owned up to it and apologized for it. So pretending there’s an “as you see it” here is denying me that same courtesy.
Gyges stated clearly and in an unmistakable manner that he was not supporting or purporting the 3 theories of Epicurus, he was refuting them.
He asked me to pick one and sell it to him.
You must see that now. I don’t know how much clearer it can be.
Gyges 1, April 12, 2010 at 6:51 pm
“I don’t believe there is a god, period, so why would I advocate one type of (in my view) nonexistent being over another? ”
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 12:16 am
goneville,
The science question was a continuation of the discussion on the unnatural selection thread and I would prefer to answer it there and keep is separate from the logic discussion here. By seminar, I just meant that I was going to lecture a bit and what I will be lecturing on will be the logical implications of Gyges remarks in the context of the discussion (as I see it)
*****************
What do you mean as “you see it”? Gyges explained he was not making the argument for Epicurus but asked me to tell him which one of the 3 theories of Epicurus I agreed with.
How can you see that any differently I don’t understand.
Did you not see where he stated he did not believe in God and therefore would not be supporting one of Epicurus’ positions?
Did you miss that? I reposted it above.
I can post it again if you need.
Or you could scroll up.
goneville,
The science question was a continuation of the discussion on the unnatural selection thread and I would prefer to answer it there and keep is separate from the logic discussion here. By seminar, I just meant that I was going to lecture a bit and what I will be lecturing on will be the logical implications of Gyges remarks in the context of the discussion (as I see it). I should also point out that while my understanding of logic is very solid, in the field of science I’m claiming some pretty substantial credentials (which I will talk about). And don’t worry about ruining the seminar, I just got distracted by something shiny for a bit…
Gee, I hope I didn’t ruin the seminar.
Hopefully your logic seminar will include some logic on why you repeatedly demanded I refute a position that I was challenged to defend.
Thats logic I could get my ignorant head around.
Do you see how you were confused there now?
You demanded I refute Epicurus positions but Gyges wasn’t asking that I refute them?
Do you see that now?
Not to drive the point home but since you’re going to the trouble and putting together a science lecture to educate me and all, because I am so ignorant and all, perhaps you could apologize for sort of attacking me there and asking that I refute something that was actually presented for me to defend.
DEFEND them.
Do you see the difference now?
Defend is different than refute.
And Slarti, how about retracting your demands I “refute” Epicurus, now that I’ve explained to you that your logic didn’t take into account that Gyges wasn’t making that argument?
Is that possible?
Slartibartfast 1, April 12, 2010 at 11:35 pm
goneville,
I’m going to make a reply to your questions about science on the other thread and I’ll be putting together a little logic seminar for you here. I will attempt to do all of this as warmly as possible. (Although some sarcasm may be unavoidable 😉 )
***************************
ok, but you need to put together a “seminar”?
What other thread?
How come you can’t just state your positions here? I mean I’m not being sarcastic or anything but it sounds to me like you’re doing some heavy googling or something.
Was really trying to reply to mr. ed in a previous post. He’s my favorite Equus.
mespo727272 1, April 12, 2010 at 11:28 pm
goneville:
No problem. When bullets fly, they always seem to be flying at you.
********************
That’s ok. I think you called me Mr Ed or something last night, so maybe I got confused or something. When you said it last night with the hello Wilbur thing I thought it might be an insult but I wasn’t sure.
I couldn’t figure out why I’d be a horse, lol. Don’t know what that meant. Guess you thought I was someone named Ed. I’m not Ed by the way, if that’s someone here.