FT2 defends Pedophile's "right" to edit, Uses Meta RfC to intimidate those saying it is wrong Options

[Ottava]

See here for the current drama. He wants to go at me because he doesn't like it that I pointed out that he defended pedophiles "right" to edit and in doing so pushed a fringe POV that makes him an inappropriate voice when discussing the sexual content related policies.

Notice how he tries to pretend to be a swell guy and I am so awful, where I then point out Bishonen's block of him for blatant abuse and disruption while I was one of the few trying to stop the drama. He sure likes to try and hide who he really is.

[lilburne]

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial.

Would that be the King of France that was put on a the throne by a girl who heard voices saying that he was the rightful king, who was later condemned by the church for being off her head and partial to trousers? You know, someone that sort of wanted to re-establish that his position was divinely sanctioned and not just some ravings of a lunatic?

BTW we are all fully aware that Joan's condemnation for cross-dressing was just as politically inspired as her later acquittal, and that her canonization was also politically inspired to draw teh French nation together after WWI.

This post has been edited by lilburne: Mon 18th October 2010, 10:55am

[Ottava]

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial.

Would that be the King of France that was put on a the throne by a girl who heard voices saying that he was the rightful king, who was later condemned by the church for being off her head and partial to trousers? You know, someone that sort of wanted to re-establish that his position was divinely sanctioned and not just some ravings of a lunatic?

BTW we are all fully aware that Joan's condemnation for cross-dressing was just as politically inspired as her later acquittal, and that her canonization was also politically inspired to draw teh French nation together after WWI.

Not many people know of her later acquittal or how immediate it was. That was the point.



SB Johnny

Last I heard, the Vatican opposes executions.

According to the current catechism, it is the act of last resort and to be used "rarely if ever". The quote from John Paul II with the change was dealing with countries that execute political prisoners or for petty crimes.

But this is recent. Here is the 1992 catechism which still is 100% Aquinas:

"2266. Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.

The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment has the effect of preserving public order and the safety of persons. Finally, punishment has a medicinal value; as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

2267. If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."

[Milton Roe]

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial.

Would that be the King of France that was put on a the throne by a girl who heard voices saying that he was the rightful king, who was later condemned by the church for being off her head and partial to trousers? You know, someone that sort of wanted to re-establish that his position was divinely sanctioned and not just some ravings of a lunatic?

BTW we are all fully aware that Joan's condemnation for cross-dressing was just as politically inspired as her later acquittal, and that her canonization was also politically inspired to draw teh French nation together after WWI.

Not many people know of her later acquittal or how immediate it was. That was the point.

Whereas, one supposes if she'd actually been a cross-dresser in circumstances that didn't require it, it might have taken Galilean amounts of time for the RC church to apologize for the Big Barbecue.

Yes, Horsey, it's not only the original hot pants, but the original lack-of-slack(s).

Lady Godiva was a freedom rider
She didn't care if the whole world looked;
Joan of Arc with the Lord to guide her
She was a sistah who really cooked!


(And then there's Sue...)

[Ottava]

"In 1455, by the order of King Charles VII of France, who Joan had publicly supported, a rehabilitation trial was opened in the Notre Dame de Paris to investigate the dubious circumstances which led to Joan's execution. The Inquisitor-General of France, was put in charge of the trial.

Would that be the King of France that was put on a the throne by a girl who heard voices saying that he was the rightful king, who was later condemned by the church for being off her head and partial to trousers? You know, someone that sort of wanted to re-establish that his position was divinely sanctioned and not just some ravings of a lunatic?

BTW we are all fully aware that Joan's condemnation for cross-dressing was just as politically inspired as her later acquittal, and that her canonization was also politically inspired to draw teh French nation together after WWI.

Not many people know of her later acquittal or how immediate it was. That was the point.

Whereas, one supposes if she'd actually been a cross-dresser in circumstances that didn't require it, it might have taken Galilean amounts of time for the RC church to apologize for the Big Barbecue.

Yes, Horsey, it's not only the original hot pants, but the original lack-of-slack(s).

Lady Godiva was a freedom rider
She didn't care if the whole world looked;
Joan of Arc with the Lord to guide her
She was a sistah who really cooked!


(And then there's Sue...)

Galileo was "imprisoned" in a cushy palace and done so because he was libelling Jesuits (read the works, about 600 pages wih 500 devoted to mocking and degrading his mathematical opponents who were high up Jesuits).

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake out of revenge for putting the Brits in their place. Two very different circumstances. By the way, Galileo was close friends with the Pope at the time, so that adds a very interesting and complex layer.

[Milton Roe]

Galileo was "imprisoned" in a cushy palace and done so because he was libelling Jesuits (read the works, about 600 pages wih 500 devoted to mocking and degrading his mathematical opponents who were high up Jesuits).

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake out of revenge for putting the Brits in their place. Two very different circumstances. By the way, Galileo was close friends with the Pope at the time, so that adds a very interesting and complex layer.

Galileo was threatened with torture ("Hey, have a look at this table full of thumbscrews and stuff" -- sweet guys, these Catholics) and then put on permanent house-arrest in his own villa. A rather nice one for the time but hardly a palace. And not a place you'd like to be for the rest of your life (which turned out to be 8 years). It doesn't sound too bad unless you've tried not going outside your house for a few weeks, in a time with no radio, TV, internet, phone, modern newspaper, etc. Then you begin to get it. You have to go out to the world in 1634; it doesn't come to you very much. Prison isn't so much where you are, as were you aren't. They let him go into the nearby city (Florence) a couple of times for medical advice, but on the whole, it's a pretty nasty punishment for a mere personal insult. It is an eggregious abuse of power.

He WAS friends with Urban VIII BEFORE mocking his views obliquely, as being those of "Simplicio" (who actually mouths simple standard ideas-- he's not really thickheaded or stupid in the book, despite the name, but merely an average Joe saying average things). Galileo probably thought the Pope would have thicker skin. Hah. Wrong. Urban was the kind of guy who had all the birds strangled in his garden because he didn't like the sound they made. Nice metaphor, eh?

[Ottava]

Galileo was "imprisoned" in a cushy palace and done so because he was libelling Jesuits (read the works, about 600 pages wih 500 devoted to mocking and degrading his mathematical opponents who were high up Jesuits).

Joan of Arc was burned at the stake out of revenge for putting the Brits in their place. Two very different circumstances. By the way, Galileo was close friends with the Pope at the time, so that adds a very interesting and complex layer.

Galileo was threatened with torture ("Hey, have a look at this table full of thumbscrews and stuff" -- sweet guys, these Catholics) and then put on permanent house-arrest in his own villa. A rather nice one for the time but hardly a palace. And not a place you'd like to be for the rest of your life (which turned out to be 8 years). It doesn't sound too bad unless you've tried not going outside your house for a few weeks, in a time with no radio, TV, internet, phone, modern newspaper, etc. Then you begin to get it. You have to go out to the world in 1634; it doesn't come to you very much. Prison isn't so much where you are, as were you aren't. They let him go into the nearby city (Florence) a couple of times for medical advice, but on the whole, it's a pretty nasty punishment for a mere personal insult. It is an eggregious abuse of power.

He WAS friends with Urban VIII BEFORE mocking his views obliquely, as being those of "Simplicio" (who actually mouths simple standard ideas-- he's not really thickheaded or stupid in the book, despite the name, but merely an average Joe saying average things). Galileo probably thought the Pope would have thicker skin. Hah. Wrong. Urban was the kind of guy who had all the birds strangled in his garden because he didn't like the sound they made. Nice metaphor, eh?

Tortured? Where did you get that one?

http://www.msn.unifi.it/upload/sub/img/DSC_0009.jpg

or here for an aerial view of what is left

http://nuke.villagioiello.com/Portals/0/Vi...ioiello_sat.jpg

And your image is misleading. What is -left- is still huge and had multiple homes as part of it. It was also not -his- but owned by an Italian prince. He was also confined to the greater property, not just the one "villa" on the grounds - the grounds included a Monastery and other buildings that were all part of a palace and quite a large one.

This was also not his first place to stay in following the incident - Archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini had him over at his palace (many of these Italian Bishops and Cardinals were of very rich families). Note, this Archbishop also helped Galileo finish his later works.

"mocking his views obliquely, as being those of "Simplicio" "

No, Simplicio was the Jesuit.

What weird source did you get all of that from? Try the The Nature of the Book by Adrian Johns.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zobsj8npW...0jesuit&f=false

That should narrow down the pages. Your view of history seems to be from a really bad source. The matter was all a political dispute following insults and libel against a few Jesuit rivals. It had nothing to do with faith but about one guy wanting to attack some enemies.

An interesting work on the changing views of Galileo can be found in Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992
by Maurice A. Finocchiaro. However, it seems like you got a hold of a source that is more anti-Catholic than historically accurate, and probably also states that Catholics thought the world was flat and was warning Columbus of sailing off the edge (which was a myth promoted by 19th century Protestants in the US).

[lonza leggiera]

Galileo was "imprisoned" in a cushy palace and done so because he was libelling Jesuits ...

Poppycock. Galileo was prosecuted in 1633 for writing Dialogo Sopra i due Massimi Sistemi del Mondo, in which he defended heliocentrism as a physical possibility (as opposed to a mere convenient mathematical fiction). Catholics had been effectively forbidden to do this in 1616 by a decree issued by the Congregation of the Index, in which heliocentrism was condemned as "false and contrary to Scripture". Even before this decree was issued, Galileo had been informed of its imminent promulgation, and that, as a consequence, Catholics were not permitted to "hold or defend" the condemned doctrine, and he had then promised not to do so himself.

I don't recall reading anything in Galileo's Dialogue that could reasonably be construed as "libelling" or even "mocking and degrading" any Jesuits, and neither have I ever seen such a suggestion made by any reputable authority on Galileo. The works of Galileo's which antagonized the Jesuits were Discourse on the Comets, published in 1619 under the name of Mario Guiducci, one of Galileo's followers—but largely written by Galileo himself—, and The Assayer, published in 1623. The first of these was not particularly disrespectful, though it did contain some slighting criticisms of the Jesuits of the Collegio Romano, which certainly offended them. The Assayer, however, contained quite a savage attack on the Jesuits' reply to Discourse on the Comets and its "anonymous" author, Father Orazio Grassi (writing under the pseudonym Lothario Sarsi). As a result, Galileo's relations with the Jesuits were irreversibly damaged. But nothing in either of those books was ever cited—at least not officially by the Church herself—as doctrinally objectionable, or as providing cause for any action against Galileo. In fact, Pope Urban VIII reportedly found The Assayer quite entertaining and never expressed any misgivings at all about its contents.

Tortured? Where did you get that one?

http://www.msn.unifi.it/upload/sub/img/DSC_0009.jpg

or here for an aerial view of what is left

http://nuke.villagioiello.com/Portals/0/Vi...ioiello_sat.jpg

And your image is misleading. What is -left- is still huge and had multiple homes as part of it. It was also not -his- but owned by an Italian prince. He was also confined to the greater property, not just the one "villa" on the grounds - the grounds included a Monastery and other buildings that were all part of a palace and quite a large one.

But the Villa Gioiello illustrated in your second link has nothing whatever to do with Galileo's villa, Il Gioiello, where he was kept under house arrest. The developers of your Villa Gioiello tell us on its home page that it's situated on the border between Tuscany and Umbria, overlooking Lake Trasimeno, which is some 120km southeast of Florence. Galileo's Il Gioiello, on the other hand, is in Arcetri in the hills surrounding Florence, and not more than 10km from the city centre. You can get a bird's-eye view of it by zooming in on the satellite or hybrid version of the Google map available on the Galileo Museum's web site. Here is a screen capture of a zoomed-in copy of the satellite map from that site. Galileo's house is supposedly the one with the virtual red pin in its roof.

"mocking his views obliquely, as being those of "Simplicio" "

No, Simplicio was the Jesuit.

No, he was neither. I'm not aware of anyone besides you who has suggested that Simplicio was intended to be a caricature of Orazio Grassi, or of any other Jesuit. Rumours that Galileo had intended Simplicio to be a caricature of the Pope surfaced in December 1635, more than two years after the end of his trial (see Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo, p.62). I don't know of any modern authority on Galileo who credits him with having actually harboured any such intention, and of the few I am acquainted with, most have explicitly stated that they consider it unlikely. Even Arthur Koestler, who is no great fan of Galileo's, says in The Sleepwalkers that the suspicions Urban supposedly entertained that Simplicio might have been a caricature of him were "of course untrue". In Galileo at Work (p.355 ) Stillman Drake expresses the view that Simplicio was modelled on two of the dimmer of Galileo's Philosophical opponents, Ludovico delle Colombe and Cesare Cremonini, neither of whom were members of the clergy, let alone Jesuits.

What weird source did you get all of that from? Try the The Nature of the Book by Adrian Johns.

http://books.google.com/books?id=zobsj8npW...0jesuit&f=false

But that source says nothing whatever about Simplicio's being an intended caricature of Orazio Grassi or any other Jesuit.


This post has been edited by lonza leggiera: Thu 21st October 2010, 1:07am

[Ottava]

But that source says nothing whatever about Simplicio's being an intended caricature of Orazio Grassi or any other Jesuit.

But it does say that the book is filled with attacks on the Jesuits, which you claim wasn't true.

If you want, I can quote from Galileo's works. The "witty dialogic sallies" that the work keeps referring is Galileo deriding his opponents after every proof. There are plenty of "barbs", and that is why the work was offensive.

If it was a simple work of science there would be no problem.

You forgot Christoph Scheiner as another target.



GBG

It's a great distraction from the sad fact that Ottava actual lost the argument with FT2.

No I didn't. FT2's refusal to answer my questions already verifies to the public that he supports pedophile's "right to edit". The RfC is dead and FT2 didn't get any support.

[Sxeptomaniac]

It's a great distraction from the sad fact that Ottava actual lost the argument with FT2.

No I didn't. FT2's refusal to answer my questions already verifies to the public that he supports pedophile's "right to edit". The RfC is dead and FT2 didn't get any support.

Ottava brand glasses: for when you just don't want to see what's right in front of you.