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
Gyges,
I originally took the position in order to engage you in the debate, but I find that the interesting issue (to me) has to do with the interaction of good and evil with free will. Which again raises the question of how do you define free will (and if that includes the PB&J/eggs choice how do you define the restriction of free will to moral issues? One issue that I am interested in is: is morality defined by intent or effect? (And what is the impact of good/evil moral decisions in the absence of reward/punishment in the afterlife) This seems to be an important issue to me (I think a lot about why an atheist should be moral – ‘because I want to be’ doesn’t seem like a good enough answer to me ;-)).
slarti:
I’ve followed the thread and it appears we have a UN problem: The language and constructs of the argument are getting in the way. Regardless of how goneville or Gyges defines the parameters of the debate, goneville needs to deal with the the Epicurean Paradox. Apparently, goneville contends that god doesn’t “want” to stop evil, and posits that as a fourth option. Personally, I think that ends the discussion as it appears to me such a position is the very definition of divine malevolence when viewed in the context of a natural disaster like the tsunami I mentioned. Certainly free will is irrelevant in a natural disaster. If free will is irrelevant, why wouldn’t God want to stop the calamity befalling helpless children? They did nothing to “choose” the “evil.”
The fundamental problem for goneville is that he wants to dwell in both the Deist and the Theist camps. Either, God merely sets the ball in motion and steps away as the Deists believe; or, and according to the tenets of theist Christianity, God sets the ball in motion and forms a personal relationship with its inhabitants. Unfortunately goneville can’t have it both ways by brandishing the rubric of “free will.” Free will doesn’t answer the question of divinely permitted malevolence when those suffering the evil are innocent, by any definition of that word (e.g. infants or children). That is why the Church invented the useful notion of “original sin,” for, you see, one can always impose suffering on the innocent when their sin is affixed before their birth and they are thus not innocent. It’s all very logical in a cruel sort of way.
Slart,
Why on earth would I limit free will to moral issues? I know why somebody taking your position would want to, but I see no good reason for anyone else to accept that limitation.
Gyges said:
Slart,
Then my response is: why does the system have to be in binary?
How is a choice between 1 and 2 any less of a choice than 1 and 0?
To put it another way: It’s lunch time, I offer my son a choice between eggs, an orange, and some animal crackers or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with an orange and some animal crackers. Both meals are good for him, both are foods he likes. Am I denying him the ability to make a decision on his own because I don’t include an option that he dislikes or is bad for him?
As to the rest of this drama, it’s simple: If I leave a conversation, I think it’s generally good etiquette to explain why. In this case, I was really uninterested in conversing on the terms that Gone wanted to.
He really wanted to make this about my views on Christianity (which I don’t think I ever actually mentioned) or alternately about me misinterpreting his argument. The first holds no interest, and he offered only sound and fury on the second. He never demonstrated how his argument wasn’t based on those three assumptions. Instead his replies just alternated between repeating the argument, and telling me I was trying to frame his beliefs with no exposition on how they were different than what I presented. I was flattered at his overestimation of my worth ($100,000 a year?) and I hold him no ill will for not wanting the conversation I did. I just happen to exercise my option not to be drawn into conversations I don’t want to have.
goneville,
This will be my last response to you on this topic – you are clearly unable or unwilling to carry on a rational discussion. Feel free to engage me again next time you switch pseudonyms – it’s my policy to treat every different pseudonym as a different person so I will respond to you until you make your nature clear again.
AFTER Gyges stated what he was willing to debate about:
and you showed that you were uninterested in having the discussion that he offered (which is too bad, because I’m curious as to his argument that free will doesn’t require a choice between good and evil), he posted this:
And he hasn’t posted anything since. You seemed to want to continue the discussion on your terms until my patient attempts to explain Gyges position drew your focus. Clearly you just want people to pay attention to you rather than debate any issue. So, as Gyges did, I will leave you to say whatever you wish about what you think that I did or believe after making one final comment:
DON’T FEED THE TROLL
Gyges,
If the offer is still open, I would like to discuss free will and choosing between good and evil with you – I promise to ignore the troll in the room. Do you have a preferred definition of good and evil?
And Slarti, When YOU, not Gyges or anyone else, but YOU are cognizant enough to read your OWN words, and address them, then let me know.
Until then debating you is an effort in futility.
When you can see the sheer nonsense of demanding I allow Gyges to define both his own AND MY positions for me prior to debating him, then we can talk.
Until then I don’t see the point.
In other words Gyges would be asserting his position, and I would be relegated to simply taking dictation.
His.
No Slarti, I don’t wish to engage you in anything until I know you’re at least cognizant enough of what you’re writing and reading, to make it worth my while.
I’ve wasted an entire night trying to show you how ludicrous the notion of letting MY OPPONENT WRITE MY POSITION FOR ME, was.
You still don’t seem to get it.
If this were a debating hall and we were on the debating team, and some neutral, THIRD party wanted to offer two sides to a position and ask for volunteers to debate them, then that would be one thing. I wouldn’t volunteer for such a thing because I don’t debate just to debate, but that would at least be one thing.
But never before have I heard of two people debating issues they both held and ONE side got to define his own position, AND HIS OPPONENTS.
Don’t you see?
You’re saying that Gyges gets to define his own position, AND MINE.
goneville,
I offered to debate Gyges on the issue that I believe he was interested in debating under the conditions that he set. Why don’t you watch and see what happens? If you’d like to continue talking with me before that, you may answer my post about science on the unnatural selection thread (although I’m going to get some sleep now, so it will be several hours before I answer anything). I don’t have anything else I want to say to you on this topic until someone else weighs in.
Would you ever take such a debate yourself if I or someone else offered it to you?
If someone said to you, “AGREE WITH ME OR SELECT ONE OF THESE 3 WRONG ANSWERS TO DEBATE ME WITH”, would you do it?
Of course not.
Then why should I?
I have no problem openly debating someone Slarti, and believe me I have nothing against you nor am I upset with you in any way. But I am frustrated at your stubbornness at being unwilling to confront your own words.
Look at the example I gave you again. This is what YOU are saying.
You say 4 + 4 = 89
Now, I must either agree with you, or if I wish to disagree with you then I first need to chose from one of the 3 answers below.
1. 4 + 4 = 77
2. 4 + 4 = 85
3. 4 + 4 = 1
All of these answers are wrong. We both know their wrong.
And I lets say I believe YOUR answer, that 4 + 4 = 89 is wrong too.
Well, the only options you’ve left me now, is to select from one of the 3 wrong answers YOU have provided for you.
Do you see Slarti?
You’ve stacked the deck against me. You’ve given me no option but to either agree with you, or select a wrong answer to debate you with.
You’re not letting ME answer.
You’re answering FOR me, then demanding I run with YOUR answer.
Which you already said was wrong.
And which I already know is wrong.
Do you follow me now Slarti? Do you see how insane that is?
And once more, I am not calling YOU stupid, or a kid. But I am calling your argument that.
Why do you need someone to explain this to you?
You made the argument, just now. You said I either had to agree with Gyges, or “SELECT” from one of his 3 positions.
Defend that.
Explain that.
You said you were going to “give me a logic seminar”.
So give me one.
Explain why in order to debate Gyges on the concept of a God, I must first either agree with him that there isn’t one, or select my position from one of the 3 positions that BOTH HE AND I already stated, were wrong?
Talk about a stacked deck.
Its “either he’s right, or he’s right”.
Get it?
And as for waiting for Gyges, there’s nothing to wait for him for.
Its you who needs to now defend your position.
You have to explain why I must allow someone to hand me my own position, especially when the position they are handing me is one I already stated I do not agree with.
What a stupid, kids argument.
“here, either agree with me or say you believe one of the 3 wrong answers I have for you”.
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
So its up to YOU to explain that.
Not Gyges.
YOU.
Because YOU said it.
Everyone besides goneville,
If you’ve read all of these posts, it is clear that either goneville or I (or both of us) are badly confused. I think that it would be instructive if you posted your opinion of which one of us is making sense (if either of us are).
Thank you.
I told you I’m done. Which part of that don’t you get?
Gyges made his position last night and said he was done. Why are you hiding behind him?
I haven’t been debating his position with you. I’ve been debating YOURS.
Apparently you’re incapable of defending it.
goneville,
I’m not posting on this thread again until after Gyges weighs in. Can you make me?
I won’t revist this again with you because its a fools argument.
You’re making no sense. Perhaps you’re drunk or something.
But you are claiming that I must either agree with you, or allow you to hand me 3 wrong answers with which to debate you on.
And that’s the most stupid thing I’ve ever heard.
Slartibartfast 1, April 13, 2010 at 5:07 am
goneville,
Let me make this easy for you.
Do you accept the 4 logical statements that I laid out?
If your answer is yes, then Gyges will debate you with the assumption that those statements are true.
If your answer is no then would you like to dispute the truth of one or more of those statements?
If your answer is yes then Gyges will likely be willing to debate about the truth of the statements that you contest.
If your answer is no then Gyges is unwilling to debate.
If I’m wrong, I’m sure Gyges will tell us so.
Is that clear?
***************************************************
Absolutely not. Hiding behind Gyges to explain away your ridiculous demands on me won’t cut it.
We aren’t talking about Gyges now.
We’re talking about YOU, and YOUR claims that I have to allow SOMEONE ELSE TO DEFINE MY ARGUMENTS, before I can make them.
And that’s just stupid.
goneville posted:
And he refused to debate you.