Dawkins calls for pope's arrest

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Which is really the point.

No it isnt! The point was about AIDS! As far as i know the Pope accepts that married couples may use condoms if one of them has HIV.

The pope would be against condoms even if they were 100% effective. Abstinence works for some, monogamy works for some and condoms work for some. No matter how much abstinence and monogamy are promoted a certain number of people are always going to have sex and they should be protected while they do it

That is YOUR opinion. But it still does not invalidate the Pope's opinion. you may not agree with the Pope if he says sex should be for monogamous couples of opposite sex but your right to disagree does not invalidate his opinion.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

Why when you were shown you were wrong didn't you bother to read the supporting evidence and admit it as you claimed when you stated that you would admit it if it was pointed out to you? Hint "I have my eyes closed and my fingers are in my ears so I can hear you" isn't a valid answer to that sort of question.

Do you not see the difference between showing someone to be wrong and simply declaring them to be wrong in bold capitals? As I said, as has been my point all along, your hostility made me uninclined to waste my time reading and responding to your post.

ISAW wrote: »

So you say. But you produce no evidence whatsoever to support your off topic personal attack on me!


I wouldn't consider unsupported allegations are either! Look! First of all

1. Where did i accuse you as you claim of being " closed minded, ignorant and ill-informed"?

and
2. did i or did i not support such alloegations if made?

here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64667255

And I really have no idea if you supported them because, as I said at the time and today, I stopped reading. And even if you did, that wouldn't make it ok

ISAW wrote: »

I have no idea what you are referring to. The moderator i refer to is this one from this forum:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65416272&postcount=84

Who told you to "calm down" with no prompting from me at all. If you continue to get personal and go off topic I may however complain about you.

Yeah I realised what you were talking about afterward. Robindch misunderstood the tone of my post, I was making a point that your hostility causes people to be hostile in return so my post contained a hostile element in quotes to illustrate this.

ISAW wrote: »

You have no basis to complain about me! I havent done anything wrong and i resent you suggesting I have.

This is YOUR opinion!

ISAW wrote: »

iu couldn't care less if you did. you haVE NO GROUNDS TO REPORT ME. I haven,t broken any rules. ILL WASTE NO MORE OFF TOPIC SPACE ON THIS TOPIC .


Keep you unsolicited and unsupported advice to yourself please and don't post them in public. If you sincerely want to help me PM me and ill take your suggestions unsupported or not under consideration.

I never said you broke any rules, I said that your hostile tone makes people hostile towards you. It was friendly advice, not an act of war. And I've said it now so pm'ing you the same thing would be kind of pointless

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

No it isnt! The point was about AIDS! As far as i know the Pope accepts that married couples may use condoms if one of them has HIV.

That is YOUR opinion. But it still does not invalidate the Pope's opinion. you may not agree with the Pope if he says sex should be for monogamous couples of opposite sex but your right to disagree does not invalidate his opinion.

You have pointed out that this is my opinion and that the fact that I have an opinion does not automatically invalidate opposing opinions. I know both of those things already, they really didn't need to be pointed out and you pointing them out does not invalidate my opinion.

I asked you (edited in, you may have missed it) why condoms should be considered immoral by a non christian. Why should they?

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you not see the difference between showing someone to be wrong and simply declaring them to be wrong in bold capitals? As I said, as has been my point all along, your hostility made me uninclined to waste my time reading and responding to your post.

You brought up the point that I declared you were wrong elsewhere. If I showed you you were wrong and you ignored the evidence please don't make things up there. You haven't been able to demonstrate WHERE I suggested you were wrong elsewhere. Please look up "argument from ignorance" under "logical fallacy".


here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64667255


Wher in that post do I say you are wrong in bold three times?

as regards the "closed mind" that comes after :
dont be silly. there are a history of valid positional statements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception

When you stared: "because my god says so" at which point his opinion can be safely ignored

You seem to ignore anything that yu might have to g and read.

And I really have no idea if you supported them because, as I said at the time and today, I stopped reading. And even if you did, that wouldn't make it ok

It would make me right and you wrong! But as it is you are contradicting yourself since above you claim you always admit if you are wrong and then you also claim that you are prepared to ignore when someone else shows you r are wrong!

Yeah I realised what you were talking about afterward.

so you were also wrong about that!

Robindch misunderstood the tone of my post,

Take it up with him nothing to do with me.

I was making a point that your hostility causes people to be hostile in return so my post contained a hostile element in quotes to illustrate this.

He wasn't correcting ME for being hostile! It seems you like to ignore any evidence showing up your errors and just make unsupported things up about other people

I never said you broke any rules,

You said you could report me. What for?

I said that your hostile tone makes people hostile towards you. It was friendly advice, not an act of war.

Keep your friendly advice to PM and not to public message. i wont ask you again.

And I've said it now so pm'ing you the same thing would be kind of pointless

But constantly repeating it on a public board and re hashing unsupported allegation wouldn't be pointless? LOL.

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You have pointed out that...snip the unsupported opinion

i have pointed out that the question "what makes the Pope right?" has a valid answer.

I asked you (edited in, you may have missed it) why condoms should be considered immoral by a non christian. Why should they?

No you didn't . As you ask you edited in your "non christian " element. Even after that it still does not ask anything about non christians and is still slanted with respect to referring to the Pope.

I didnt make any comment on why non christians should or should not believe in what they believe. i only pointed out some demographic facts such as
1. AIDS is spread by sex not by policies of wearing condoms or not wearing condoms.
2. Even if condoms never existed the Pope would not approve of such sex.
3. Even if condoms were 100 percent effective in preventing HIV the Pope would not approve of such sex.

the Pope also disagrees with people killing each other. if non Christians consider it okay to shot people or bomb buildings then maybe they consider it moral to do that. My point is that the Pope still has a valid position in saying suicide bombing is wrong whatever non christians think.

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you pointing them out does not invalidate my opinion.

We were discussing not you or me but whether the Pope has a valid opinion. He DOES! i may not agree with it that is my opinion you may not either . so what? His opinion is still valid!

robindch

ISAW wrote: »

ILL WASTE NO MORE OFF TOPIC SPACE ON THIS TOPIC

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is YOUR opinion!

Ladies, can you stop shouting at each other please? You're upsetting the horses.

thanks.

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

Ladies, can you stop shouting at each other please? You're upsetting the horses.

thanks.

oops!
Caps were on by mistake.
I should have changed case back and didn't.
I should also have put no grounds to report me in bold but the caps were intended there.
My error. How ironic
I do however occasionally put a word in caps instead of bold.

Nayway nuff said I'll just leave this thread.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

You brought up the point that I declared you were wrong elsewhere. If I showed you you were wrong and you ignored the evidence please don't make things up there. You haven't been able to demonstrate WHERE I suggested you were wrong elsewhere. Please look up "argument from ignorance" under "logical fallacy".


here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64667255


Wher in that post do I say you are wrong in bold three times?

as regards the "closed mind" that comes after :
dont be silly. there are a history of valid positional statements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception

When you stared: "because my god says so" at which point his opinion can be safely ignored

You seem to ignore anything that yu might have to g and read.




It would make me right and you wrong! But as it is you are contradicting yourself since above you claim you always admit if you are wrong and then you also claim that you are prepared to ignore when someone else shows you r are wrong!



so you were also wrong about that!



Take it up with him nothing to do with me.




He wasn't correcting ME for being hostile! It seems you like to ignore any evidence showing up your errors and just make unsupported things up about other people



You said you could report me. What for?




Keep your friendly advice to PM and not to public message. i wont ask you again.



But constantly repeating it on a public board and re hashing unsupported allegation wouldn't be pointless? LOL.

I've tried to explain four times (I think) now and you're still not getting the point. I am not contradicting myself because there's a difference between showing someone to be wrong and causing them not bother reading your post due to your hostile tone, you keep talking about who was right or wrong despite the fact I keep saying who happens to be right or wrong is irrelevant to a hostile tone putting people off, I never said I could or would report you, you continue to call my "allegations" unsupported after I provided a link to the post where you said the things I claim you said and on top of it all you continue to declare in bold that I am WRONG despite my attempt to explain that it just makes people hostile towards you even if you are right so there's really no point continuing this line of conversation

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

Ladies, can you stop shouting at each other please? You're upsetting the horses.

thanks.

Ah I was just repeating back to him his own line to show him how annoying it is :P

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

i have pointed out that the question "what makes the Pope right?" has a valid answer

No you didn't . As you ask you edited in your "non christian " element. Even after that it still does not ask anything about non christians and is still slanted with respect to referring to the Pope.

I didnt make any comment on why non christians should or should not believe in what they believe. i only pointed out some demographic facts such as
1. AIDS is spread by sex not by policies of wearing condoms or not wearing condoms.
2. Even if condoms never existed the Pope would not approve of such sex.
3. Even if condoms were 100 percent effective in preventing HIV the Pope would not approve of such sex.

the Pope also disagrees with people killing each other. if non Christians consider it okay to shot people or bomb buildings then maybe they consider it moral to do that. My point is that the Pope still has a valid position in saying suicide bombing is wrong whatever non christians think.

It's your opinion that the question "what makes the Pope right?" has a valid answer but I have yet to see you justify that position, you just keep saying it over and over. So I would like you to actually explain why the pope is right. The pope has an objection to sex outside marriage and this causes him to disapprove of the use of condoms regardless of how effective they are. You confirm this in your third point. But this makes your first point "AIDS is spread by sex not by policies of wearing condoms or not wearing condoms" irrelevant because even if condoms were 100% effective, even if sex with condoms did not spread AIDS the pope would still not approve of their use. The spread or prevention of AIDS has nothing to do with the pope's objection to condoms

So what I'm asking you to justify is why the pope would not support the use of condoms even if they they were 100% effective in preventing AIDS. Yes the pope does not approve of such sex but the question is: what is his justification for this position other than reference to the authority of a holy book whose authority the people he is talking to do not accept? You keep using the analogy of killing people but I can explain to you exactly why killing people is wrong in a way that will be accepted by anyone, not just those who accept the authority of a particular book so I am asking you to do the same for the type of sex that the pope disapproves of. It's not enough to just say the pope considers them immoral and that's his opinion and it's valid, why does the pope consider them immoral?

Dades

Since last night's (ped) antics have turned this into the WORST THREAD EVER, can any more talk about the Pope and AIDS go to this thread? (That's not really a question, btw).

And the next person to post off-topic about anything including bolds and CAPS will see a wholesale deletion of all the chaff in this thread.

Thanking you.

MrPudding

ISAW wrote: »

It isnt just that. ther are other factual errors in the article. the "appeal to authority" by the poster of it that the writer is a barrister does not therefore hold.

Not really an appeal to authority, in the conventional sense. It is simply an article by the barrister who will be carrying out the action that this thread is about. It was not posted because he was a barrister; it was posted because he is the main protagonist in the activity this thread is talking about, who happens to be a barrister.

That said, is it unreasonable to rely on the opinion of a barrister in legal matters? I believe that is what they are paid for.

ISAW wrote: »

the article starts off claiming the Pope should be on trial!

Which is a good start.

ISAW wrote: »

It goes on to a report on clerical abuse in Ireland. It mentions a criminal offence of "aiding and abetting sex with minors" which diod nt to my knowledge exist over the period dealt with by the Murphy report mentioned in relation to Ireland.

I think this is scene setting. He is pointing out a finding of the Murphy report.

ISAW wrote: »

It then hops off to the US in 2002 (the Murphy Report goes back to 1974) with an "it has been alleged" comment!

Sorry, what is wrong with the “it has been alleged” comment? Someone has alleged this type of conduct, of the type which was identified in the Murphy report, also happened in the US and that it reflected Vatican policy. Until that link is proven it is alleged.

ISAW wrote: »

It mentions 11,750 "allegations" in the US.

It mentions 11750 allegation that have been settled.

ISAW wrote: »

In fact in Ireland ther are probably thousands if not tens of thousands of sexual abuse cases but there are scarcely 50 clerics involved over 50 or so years! Research indicates clerics are about 1 percent of abusers. Little if ever is mentioned of the other 99 per cent! And that is worldwide.

So what? We are talking specifically about the abuse by priest and the subsequent coverup.

ISAW wrote: »

Defence of the Pope is conflated with defence of George Bush torture policies.

Again, scene setting. Bush is mentioned because the Vatican requested his assistance in dodging its responsibilities. He reference to torture policy is a reflection of the calibre of the lawyer in question.

ISAW wrote: »

Incorrect legal reference is made to the diplomatic status of the holy see.

In your opinion. In his opinion it is challengeable. You see, that is how law works. One side believes it is correct, and the other side believes it is wrong. So if he proceed with his action a the judiciary will decide if he is correct, though I am sure they will take your thoughts into consideration.

ISAW wrote: »

It ends incorrectly stating the Pope blamed pedophelia on homosexuality and stating the Vatican is wrong on homosexuality abortion and contraception.


On that basis Id fairly much consider it anti Rome.

Yes, this is possibly slightly incorrect. It was not the pope that blamed homosexuality, just someone that worked for him.

MrP

ISAW

MrPudding wrote: »

In your opinion. In his opinion it is challengeable. You see, that is how law works. One side believes it is correct, and the other side believes it is wrong. So if he proceed with his action a the judiciary will decide if he is correct, though I am sure they will take your thoughts into consideration.

Snip Waffle!
Here is the FACT:
The point of information made by me was that the Holy see is recognised by the UN giving it's diplomats status everywhere. however the UK is a sovereign state and even if the UK was not a UN member it could make laws applicable to the UK. It has done so with respect to the Vatican in the 1980s.

British diplomats pointed out that the country has had relations with the Vatican since the 1400s.
...
"The UK has full diplomatic relations with the Holy See and the Pope is recognised as its head of state. He therefore has sovereign immunity."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2010/04/15/pope-s-visit-to-uk-to-go-ahead-as-vatican-laughs-off-claim-he-could-be-arrested-over-child-abuse-in-catholic-church-86908-22187520/

Not my opinion. the UKHO government opinion.

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

The point of information made by me was that the Holy see is recognised by the UN giving it's diplomats status everywhere. however the UK is a sovereign state and even if the UK was not a UN member it could make laws applicable to the UK.

Just to point out that the UN is irrelevant to all of this. What matters is whether two nations or states have bilateral diplomatic relations with one another or not. If yes, then diplomatic immunity exists. If not, then it doesn't.

British diplomats pointed out that the country has had relations with the Vatican since the 1400s.

Not strictly true (but then since when could you count on a British diplomat to be strictly truthful :pac: ).

A little event known as the Reformation scuppered official diplomatic relations with England in the Sixteenth Century. Formal diplomatic relations were re-established in 1914, which are what confer immunity, and were raised to full ambassadorial level in 1982 (probably to coincide with a papal visit that year).

It has done so with respect to the Vatican in the 1980s.

Indeed, and, since I would find it hard to trust the Daily Record on anything other than providing a recipe for deep-fried Mars Bars, here is the information straight from the horse's mouth: UK Foreign Office

So, the bottom line is that there is zero possibility of the Pope being arrested, and if lawyers have suggested otherwise to Ditchkins then our atheist crusaders should ask for their money back and find better legal advice.

iUseVi

The United Kingdom and the Holy See are both signed up to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=III-3&chapter=3&lang=en.

I think the best they can do is declare the pope a "Persona non grata" under Article 9 of the treaty but I don't see that they can detain him.

MrPudding

iUseVi wrote: »

The United Kingdom and the Holy See are both signed up to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=III-3&chapter=3&lang=en.

I think the best they can do is declare the pope a "Persona non grata" under Article 9 of the treaty but I don't see that they can detain him.

It will be interesting to see if anything does happen. The QC seems to believe it is challengeable, only time will tell if it is.

The other point he is making is that the ICC cares not for head of state status. If the charges can be formed in such a way as to fall under its remit it could be game on.

MrP