Jump to content

Formerly known as BOTP II

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Formerly known as BOTP II

  1. ÃÂ

    Young enough and old enough to have had Nuns and Christian brothers running 4 of the 5 schools I attended. ÃÂ The 5th one had just gotten rid of the last of them by the time I got there. ÃÂ The second last one was full of rumours of you name it, but it was also the only one I went to that included borders.


    And yes, I agree with you on the sexual dysfunction. ÃÂ Maybe that's why many of the churches that have split off over the years have allowed female pastors, marriage etc etc. ÃÂ Cause they new what celibacy was doing.


    Just because every institution going back that far was a disaster (your words) doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to those causing the disaster. ÃÂ Many don't wanna turn a blind eye.ÃÂ

    Who is advocating turning a blind eye?


    Pell is one player in an organisational fail of a large scale. His role and degree of culpability in that has not been determined.

  2. Which is why the right wing nuts love Murdoch so much and want the ABC and Fairfax shutdown...

    No i read fairfax for the gags.


    'The ideal of the wise, benevolent reformer who would calmly canvass options and then lead a determined program of change has evaporated.


    In its place is just another politician, operating from fear.'


    Or as i like to call the malster. Mr 15 per cent.

  3. ÃÂ

    Very depressing article, so sad, so very sad. Apart from the obvious horrendous abuse, one minor fact also stood out for me, and that's the callousness and clear loveless nature of the nun's order: not allowing a loving mother to have contact with her child, who she had to place in care due to circumstances at home.

    You guys are all young right?


    The brothers and nuns were all total hard A---s. They were making movies 40 years ago about the sexual dysfunction driving them batty.


    Any institution with the care of kids going back 30-40 years was a disaster.

  4. Absolutely. Â From experience I can say you can not know.


    Cept some came to Pell, for help. Â Seems to me he might have known then!


    **** him.

    But he strongly denies it. And you probably know very little about his accuser. Who may. Or may not be credible.

  5. Paul Bongiorno (of radio national and the project fame) shared a house with risdale and has said:


    'I had no idea what he was up to, he said. And when people look at me quizzically, I say let me tell you this.


    'There are married men and women now who sleep with their husbands and wives and donât know that their husband or wife is having an affair.


    Let me tell you that Ridsdale never came to the presbytery in Warrnambool and said, Guess how many boys Iâve raped today'.


    Very sensitive indeed from mr bonjiorno. But i gather his point is that one is not guilty by association only.

  6. This makes some pretty harrowing reading, and again hard to imagine more wasn't "known" by those in power.



    More was known. The bishop who was risdale's boss was a witness last week. His evidence was pathetic.


    But regarding pell, being a flat mate of risdale's in the 70s (while an assistant priest) raises a query but does not establish knowledge of what risdale was up to.

  7. I can read this thread again, after being reminded of the "ignore" function :-)

    A politics thread where you block the views you don't like.


    There is a study about that:


    "Scientists and other people have known for quite some time that many people tend to limit their exposure to news sources that offer information that goes against their own beliefs instead, they are drawn to sources that they find agreeable and in so doing bolster their beliefs when multiple people do the same thing and use the same sources they create what has become known as echo chambers. The researchers with this new effort have found a similar pattern in information processing by people that use the Internet most specifically, those that use Facebook."


    P.s. no facebook for me.

  8. It seems the great communicator's communication has broken down with his most important deputy:


    "Federal Coalition MPs are becoming concerned at the direction of the government amid indications of an increasingly strained relationship between the office of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Treasurer Scott Morrison.


    As the government struggled again on Wednesday to get its lines straight on tax policy, sources said there was an uneasy mood between Mr Turnbull and Mr Morrison on Sunday night when the cabinet met at The Lodge for dinner, and the governmentâs general political situation and its derailed tax reform plans were discussed.


    âIt was about âhow did we get into this mess?ââ said a sourceâ¦


    Friends of Mr Morrison say he is being unfairly blamed for the tax plans running off the rails. The government has been scrambling on tax policy since it decided this month to abandon plans to raise the rate and base of the GST to fund tax cuts.


    âScott was just doing his job and they all abandoned him when it got rough,â one Liberal MP said. âHoward would never have done that to Costello."â¦


    The wheels really are coming off very quickly. And i'd love to know which bozo asked 'how did we get into this mess'.

  9. ÃÃÂ ÃÃÂ Channeling the 'I'm not biased, just ask me' Dyson Heydon ...

    Don't you have a coi on commenting on the unions ? I might need to consult wikipedia.


    Ps for ten pints benefit. This is a joke.

  10. ÃÃÂ

    You might not quibble, but you cherry-pick the content. I quote you, and then detail that you're playing a strawman.



    Start another thread on Assange, why bring it up here, what relevance does how the "left feel" have here? It's a red herring.


    Explain the conspiracy, I really don't get what you're implying.


    You are the only one mentioning malpractice and 'the' Doctor in the same sentence. All comments to date were about the conflict of interest relevant to the position the doctor found himself in.




    Start another thread, not relevant, red herring.

    The critique of posters like trybebore40 is largely premised on core issues like christians aren't really christian because they believe in traditional marriage, secure borders etc. The world would be a better place if they got with humanist values etc.


    You don't think that's a political point?


    And for goodness sake. If the medical opinion was correct. You are fretting over the perception of conflict when every other cardiologist from every other faith would arrive at the same conclusion.

  11. ÃÂ

    Call it what you like mate, and claim all the authority you want, the above demonstrates different.


    Selective indeed, let's fill in those blanks:


    "Most of the damage was self-inflicted across decades, although the hysterical hatred whipped up ahead of Cardinal George Pellâs appearance before the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has been bigoted and vile. And, controversially, Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide Philip Wilson â vice-president of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference â is back at work, despite facing criminal charges alleging he failed to report child abuse committed by a priest in Maitland in NSW 40 years ago...Bishop Mulkearnsâs extraordinary admission that he âhad no idea of the effects of the incidents that took placeâ was as grotesque as his admission to Commissioner Peter McClellan that âI donât know reallyâ if the sodomy of small boys and the rape of small girls had always been a crime."


    I'll quote Tim Minchin's blog, which goes someway to explain the hysterical hatred:


    If you actually read the first thing i wrote it was to the effect catholic church deserved a kicking for the history and its difficult to have faith in institutions. Quote one bit above where i've suggested otherwise. I don't quibble with editorial. You impute things that aren't said and then call out 'strawman'?


    How does the left feel about that assange fella hiding away from his sex assault charges ? Its one conspiracy after another. Pell and his malpracticing vatican doctor to avoid fronting up to sex charges.


    And the issue of controversy re pell is - what is his responsibility for the kids who were abused. That's one of the things the RC will consider right? Minchin misses that nuance because he's reached his own conclusion.


    But i've not said he's not entitled to a view.


    And then julian assange. the poor innocent being falsely accused by the rabid swedish govt of sex charge - dastardly swedes renowned for their right wing govts and manufacturing of spurious sex charges.

  12. ÃÂ

    Umm, OK, let me follow that thought through.


    Because someone has made comments defending an institution you like, and that person has then been criticised, you think it's only right and fair to criticise people en masseÃÂ who take a political position you don't like?


    I'm not a 'green', so I'm not defending them here, I just can't see how attacking them can ever be part of the discussion.ÃÂ Why don't you provide content we can read in defence of what Bolt said? If he is being criticised unfairly, then defend the position directly and not divert by attacking something else which you think needs to be attacked in the same way.

    I think you've missed the chronology of the thread. Started with pell bashing into generalised christan bashing. And someone then had temerity to spoil the mob hate.


    And bolt was drafted in as a Christian symbol. So i'm puzzled to as to his relevance.

  13. ÃÂ

    Nice attempt to backtrack, and then sidestep your earlier demonstration of not understanding it.


    I defined the concept for you, and you questioned that: "You are saying there is a conflict between the person's duty as a doctor and their interest in the catholic church...And pray. Has this conflict resulted in?"


    You were challenging the concept of conflict of interest, to quote "Or is your concern the perception of conflict rather than an actual conflict?", again repeated later: "Without misdiagnosis you are not talking about an actual conflict but the perception of conflict." From your original response in relation to comments made on a COI: "So you are accusing them of a deliberate misdiagnosis?"


    Even after explaining again, you said "Can you define the actual conflicting interests using the wiki definition?", so I answered your question. If I'm paid by the word, you employed me :wink3:

    Lets agree to disagree.


    As stated in Oz today. "The hysterical hatred whipped up ahead of ...Pell's appearance... has been bigoted and vile'.


    See certain posts above.

  14. Sorry mate, I don't see this as adding perspective.


    One is a religion demanding faith and obediance and ever lasting pain and torment for wandering from the path. The other is a political position.


    I don't see the perspective of the "green left" not delivering on stuff they rant about and the buggering of children.

    Well if andrew bolt is being drafted in as an example of religious people and the hypocrisy of their belief system. I think a bit of a stab at the greens as the paragon of humanist values and the hypocrisy that for a lot this does not extend much beyond chat is sort of on point.


    You guys set up a whole bunch of tenous strawman arguments. And then scream 'strawman' when i parody the 'mumbo jumbo'.

  15. I'd like to thank FBOTP2 for single handedly keeping my thread alive and kicking! It was getting too easy with pretty much everyone in the thread agreeing that Pell and his catholic kin are monsters that need to answer for their sins.

    Does paul bonjiorno fall within that 'catholic kin' bucket?

  16. Your first two paragraphs make no sense to the discussion in relation to the COI. The facts relating to this simple conflict of interest are obvious.


    Pell is being called to Australia to be questioned on issues sensitive to his employer. A Doctor employed by the same employer is called-on to judge whether he can make such a trip. It is in the best interest of the employer to keep Pell from travelling. There could be a conflict of interest between making the correct call as a Doctor and (I think the Dr is male):


    - following orders (his job being at risk)

    - his faith.


    Think back to my example of being a TO. I know I'll make the right decision as a TO, but others may think there's a conflict with:


    - friend's request to turn a blind eye.

    - my friendship.


    Neither you nor I have any evidence whether the decision was or was not biased. That is not part of the discussion. However the position the Doctor is in is one which presents a conflict of interest.


    Another example. The UK are investigating my company for tax evasion. I'm called to give evidence in the UK. A Doctor, employed by my company tells the UK I'm too sick to travel. I could be at Death's door and it's obvious I couldn't travel, however there is still a conflict of interest.


    Edit to add, as you edited your post after I sent.


    You are starting to get it slowly :wink3:


    It is about the 'perception'. That's why I added the bold to the definition: 'could be'.

    You defined the conflict exactly as i originally did.


    Conflict btw duty as a dr v. Allegiance to church.


    Do you get paid by the word?

  17. Whether or not you want to claim it's for perspective, IT'S STILL A STRAWMAN!


    So, let's play: what perspective are you trying to convey? That unless a collective of individuals have achieved the same as another collective, they are not allowed to pass comment on that collective in any way? That a group of individuals with a certain policial leaning are the equivalent of a multi-billion dollar cult, and must achieve the same as that cult before passing comment? Enlighten me on the perspective you are bringing to the discussion!

    There is a line of argument that a christian is not really a good Christian if they believe in certain things.


    What do green left supporters do to consolidate there sense of intellectual and moral superiority about helping out the little guy ? (Tweeting doesn't count).

  18. ÃÃÂ

    Please read-up what a "conflict of interest" means mate, your comment shows you don't know at all.


    Let's try by example, please take this as an example and don't use it as a literal equivalent to the current discussion. I'm a TO. If I'm a TO on the bike and my mates are racing, let's say for argument's sake that one is a Pro and is in with a shout at a podium place. Before the race has even began, before any actual issue has arisen (are we clear so far? Nobody is even in the water yet, let alone been carded on the bike), there is a conflict of interest. There's my interest in seeing my mate podium, and there's my interest in upholding my duty as a TO. I know I will uphold my duty as a TO, but to everyone else there could possibly be a conflict of interest. IT DOES NOT MATTER whether anything has resulted from it. Let me quote from Wikipedia (my bold):



    See the bold, does it make sense?


    Let's look at it the other way. If a Doctor who was abused at the hands of a priest when younger was called on to assess whether Pell could travel, there absolutely is a conflict of interest there as well.


    Please tell me you understand the concept of conflict of interest now!

    Lets say pell went to one of you guys.


    Now you would be horribly conflicted. Because based on not really knowing all the facts you've reached all the conclusions.


    Can you define the actual conflicting interests using the wiki definition?


    For me. It's potentially the conflict btw the person's duty as a doctor (ie to properly diagnose etc) v. Dr's allegiance to church.


    Without misdiagnosis you are not talking about an actual conflict but the perception of conflict.


    I think i understand concept ok.

  19. No. But I know in future when there are any allegations about a Labor politician or Union official or anyone from 'the left' that you will be quiet unless or until there is a finding against them.

    Thank goodness for the trade union royal commission i guess.

  20. BOTP genuine question. Is your issue that Pell is innocent until proven guilty and therefore people should lay off unless or until it's proven he committed a crime?

    Is there any finding against him yet? I did ask a few pages back.

  21. Â

    Dude, you are a master of logical fallacies. Please, learn how to construct an argument without resorting to such things; by continuing to do so, you discredit yourself and your position. You have used a strawman here, please take the time to read-up what it is, and then restore your credibility in a discussion by never using it again.


    I state that there is a conflict of interest, and you claim that by doing so, I am actually accusing them of misdiagnoses. Whether the diagnosis is accurate or not, there is a conflict of interest - please tell me you understand that basic concept!

    You are saying there is a conflict between the person's duty as a doctor and their interest in the catholic church.


    And pray. Has this conflict resulted in?


    Or is your concern the perception of conflict rather than an actual conflict?

  • Create New...