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).

[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?

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).

I said he was threatened with torture, and shown the instruments formally.

I'm under no illusions about flat Earth vs. round Earth. Though this myth that Columbus thought the Earth was flat goes back much farther than the 19th century (at least to Jefferson's notes on Virginia, which is where I encountered it first). I think it is due partly to Copernicus' book of 1543, wherein he pokes fun at an one early Christian theologian for thinking the Earth is flat, knowing (but forgetting to say) that everybody else at the time thought it was spherical. Later readers took Copernicus' argument entirely too literally.

No, the official Catholic position (enforced only after the first Galileo fiasco of 1616) was the the Earth was stationary, and didn't orbit the Sun (rather the other way around). In other words, Copernicus' view. The idea that Galileo was being punished for mocking Jesuits might be true, but the Pope certainly did nothing to stop it at Galileo's second trial. And the matter went far futher than simple action against Gallileo, because the church not only put Galileo's book on the index of banned and prohibited works Index Librorum Prohibitorum, but also (retrospectively) Copernicus's great work, published 1543 (at almost the day he died), but which wasn't withdrawn from circulation by the Roman Catholic church and put on the Index until 1616-- the year the Holy See officially first denounced Galileo regarding heliocentrism. This is more than 60 years later. Copernicus hadn't had problems with the church and certainly not with any Jesuits, but his book stayed on the list pending corrections never made, until 1758. You can read Galileo affair which is pretty good. You can argue all you like about it being a personal thing against Galileo, and you might even be right, but it also went on to Galileo's ideas to those of Copernicus too (though he was long dead). It was a war against a POV, and it included many banned users. Where have we seen that before?

This Holy Congregation has also learned about the spreading and acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, which is also taught by Nicholaus Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium and by Diego de Zúñiga's In Job.... Therefore, in order that this opinion may not creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus [De revolutionibus] and Diego de Zúñiga [In Job] be suspended until corrected.

As noted, that correction was never carried out. Protestants happily kept publishing the thing, and Catholics (by and large) couldn't read it. Which was the whole idea, of course.