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

[Ottava]

Here are the questions , think he has the guts to answer them?

Any predictions?

Any suggestions for other questions?



Sxeptomaniac

which was responding to Carbuncle's implied claim that other top-ten websites ban pedophiles based on off-site information

Yahoo shut down all of their private rooms based on real life FBI stings that went to people's homes. So yeah, there was quite a lot of off-site evidence there. Yahoo also takes in off-site evidence about users to shut down pedophiles, and MySpace has also disabled profiles based on off-site evidence. I don't know about the rest.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Sat 16th October 2010, 2:45pm

[Minor4th]

Normal sites have ToS agreements and police their sites with staff to enforce them. They do don't rely on whoever shows up as a "collaborator" on any given day. Nor do they rely on whatever "policies" an ever shifting "community" might hack together at any given moment. This kind of activity requires the type of agency normally associated with employees, although there are some roles for true volunteers but these need to be more than mere "contributors." Users are typically limited to "report abuse" tools. The disturbing distortion where Wikipedians pursue each other on websites across the internet is scary in itself and self appointed vigilantes are definitely not the way to go. Because WP encourage child/adult collaboration on a level unknown elsewhere on the internet they need to be the most vigilant. This means COPPA like tools, limits on personal/email messages and IRL vetting of people engaging in targeted activities. It also means a willingness to work with law enforcement and take advice from child protection experts.

Exactly! How is this not extremely obvious?

Instead, we have the exact opposite on Wiki. Free speechers running amok, no ToS, no prohibition against illegal activity (other than copyright violations), child protection policy du jour - largely a reaction in proportion to the amount of negative media attention given to Wiki/Jimbo. Not only are there no controls or adequate safeguards, there are blocs of editors advocating for pedophile "rights" to "be" and to edit, even as self-identified pedophiles, so long as they are not disruptive. What in the world could be more disruptive than having a self-identified pedophile (whether identified on or off wiki) participating in a collaborrative project with children? And no restriction on said pedophile's access and ability to contact children privately through wikimail? It's completely nuts.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Priests that spoke out against the Church were excommunicated. Priests who molested children but didn't attack the church, were merely moved to someplace else.

Bearing in mind that there really is no such thing as "The Church", just the people inside it (and the ruling clique at that), the full quotation should be "... were merely moved to someplace else and defended at great cost for as long as possible".

Who is The Church of the Wikipedia? The trustee and a handful of immovable admins, or are even the trustees mostly a front? The Church being Jimbo, Godwin, Michael Davis ... can we put names on them?

To play the Devil's Advocate for one moment, is someone a pedophile while they are not abusing or working towards abusing children? Should the Wikipedia disallow pedophiles who work consistently on neutral topics, upload no sexual content, and attempt no interaction with minors? The simple answer is they cannot because they cannot identify them. There are few real life people on the Wikipedia, no register of volunteers acting for them. There is no way of telling who is what.

In fact, editing Wikipedia would be an excellent activity for individuals on the sex offenders register who cannot otherwise go outside and interact with young people and the rest of society in a safe manner!

I lead in with that not to act as a pedophile apologist ... I am not. I would happy with a death penalty for them and see no redeeming quality in society having to afford their existence ... but to suggest that the prominent pro-pedophile activists are not actually pedophiles per se but misintended amateur liberal theoreticians, like Eric Moeller was. Let's expand "pedophile" to "child abuser", not all child abuse is sexual.

One obvious influence would be individuals interested in the homosexualization of youth. Post-NAMBLA crawling its way out of the Gay Rights movement and attempting to claim equivalent "rights", the whole gay men/pedophilia debate has become political hotbed reflected even in the academia done around it. It is in the collective interest of gay men to homosexualize younger males and that risk crossing the line into pedophilia ... although they would argue to the grave against the idea.

Therefore, "Should Wikipedia allow known paedophiles to edit?" How can they know them? The only way forward is proper volunteer registration process - single verified account - as per every other responsible charity NPO. One that can easily be checked against by sex offender registries.

Would Childline, the Boy Scouts, or the Samaritans allow anonymous volunteers to play with and educate their children? Don't make me laugh ...

Of course, then the questions arise,

"Should Wikipedia allow known rapists to edit?"
"Should Wikipedia allow known wife beaters to edit?"
"Should Wikipedia employ individuals representing their qualifications fraudulently?"
"Should Wikipedia endorse individuals who hide $800,000 from someone they owed it to.

Nothings going to happen, is it? Let's just all have fun and invite the kids to play! The Wikipedia has never had a moral core, not at least since Sanger left I suspect. The Wikipedia's moral core is Jimbo's core ... is the core of the core individuals.

Again, who are they?

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sun 17th October 2010, 5:06am

[carbuncle]

Go on if you'd like; you're just backing up the point I just made. Their terms of service all relate to behavioral violations on their own sites, not discovery of evidence on other sites. WP faces a relatively unique set of circumstances, so WWYD or WWGD is not an answer.

Wikipedia's answer to a "relatively unique set of circumstances" is to have no terms of service whatsoever. The wikimedia foundation does have a terms of use policy. but it is entirely about the licensing of contributions, and their reuse.

I agree there are good reasons why WP should have set up a standard terms of service agreement years ago (the resistance to doing so is another strange aspect of the site). Still, that doesn't really change my point, which was responding to Carbuncle's implied claim that other top-ten websites ban pedophiles based on off-site information

Sxeptomaniac, you're right - the terms of service excerpts that I posted only deal with on-site activities, but I am implying that top ten websites will take action against paedophilia advocates based on off-site identification. While Facebook, to choose one example, quite clearly states in their TOS "You will not use Facebook if you are a convicted sex offender", I doubt any site is going to explicitly say that they will ban people for something they do on another site. That would seem to be inviting lawsuits. I can only tell you that Google-owned sites for one take such things very seriously and will act swiftly, given convincing evidence.

The WP situation is doubly or perhaps triply interesting. Since they are a non-profit charity, they do not have to abide by Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which applies to the other US-based sites. Nothing is stopping them from adopting it (or similar), but they don't.

WP has no real "terms of service" similar to virtually every other major website. There is a weak argument to be made that the various policies and guidelines make up a TOS, but a TOS that anyone can edit is less than ideal.

Here's the part to which you should pay close attention: WP has identified and banned paedophile advocates for on-site activities. One banned user, who used the pseudonym User:Tony Sandel, returned as User:MatthewOsborne and edited for over 6 months using that account. User:PseudoAnoNym was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user User:Tyciol. That one only lasted a month and a half, but I have no doubt that Tyciol has a new sock active on one project or another. Having identified paedophilia advocates, does WP not have a responsibility to take steps to prevent them from continuing to edit?

[KD Tries Again]

To play the Devil's Advocate for one moment, is someone a pedophile while they are not abusing or working towards abusing children? Should the Wikipedia disallow pedophiles who work consistently on neutral topics, upload no sexual content, and attempt no interaction with minors? The simple answer is they cannot because they cannot identify them. There are few real life people on the Wikipedia, no register of volunteers acting for them. There is no way of telling who is what.

I think that's right, and this topic would be much more straightforward if it focused on edits rather than editors. Editing WP to encourage or promote pedophilia is a problem, whoever is doing it. If an editor is making appropriate edits on WP but engaging in harmful activities outside WP, the situation needn't be dealt with by WP - the individual should be reported to the appropriate authorities.

Of course, Ottava does deliver some mysterious gems:

Brothers and coffee shops are highly restricted now and will be even more so. This is fact.

This post has been edited by KD Tries Again: Sun 17th October 2010, 4:12pm

[Ottava]

Of course, Ottava does deliver some mysterious gems:

Brothers and coffee shops are highly restricted now and will be even more so. This is fact.

Should say Brothels but my keyboard isn't working with some letters and the spellchecker changed it to what it thought was "commonsense" (I guess it didn't think anyone would mention a brothel?). Weird stuff.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2cc0e802-d2fb-11df...tml&_i_referer=

That is the article but now it put up a pay wall. Rather lame.


By the way, Milton - the Church excommunicate on heresy quite easily. FYI, the Inquisition was started to purge monasteries and the clergy of those embracing strange sexual practices. Quite a few people were those preaching that marriage was evil, that adultery was okay, etc. Pedophiles would fit into that definition (as with any breaking of the vow of chasity). So, a solution would be to bring back the Inquisition. Anyway, they tried to remove two priests in California for stuff who sued. All sorts of loony things. I think they now have a streamline process for it, but you have to remember that 99% of the incidents happened between 1960 and 1985, so they were still dealing with the Vatican 2 transition. Also, an extremely high rate of the offenders were non US born individuals.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Sun 17th October 2010, 4:42pm

[carbuncle]

I lead in with that not to act as a pedophile apologist ... I am not. I would happy with a death penalty for them and see no redeeming quality in society having to afford their existence ... but to suggest that the prominent pro-pedophile activists are not actually pedophiles per se but misintended amateur liberal theoreticians, like Eric Moeller was. Let's expand "pedophile" to "child abuser", not all child abuse is sexual.

One obvious influence would be individuals interested in the homosexualization of youth. Post-NAMBLA crawling its way out of the Gay Rights movement and attempting to claim equivalent "rights", the whole gay men/pedophilia debate has become political hotbed reflected even in the academia done around it. It is in the collective interest of gay men to homosexualize younger males and that risk crossing the line into pedophilia ... although they would argue to the grave against the idea.

Despite the fact that I've been involved in several discussions here relating to paedophiles, I'm not actually one of those people who thinks that paedophiles on the internet are anywhere near the threat that some people make it out to be. Children are at much greater risk of being sexually abused by their parents, relatives, priests, scoutmasters, sports coaches, etc. And very much more likely to be either physically or mentally abused by their peers.

I take issue with the statement "It is in the collective interest of gay men to homosexualize younger males and that risk crossing the line into pedophilia". The implication that gay men are attempting to sexualize young males for their own nefarious and lascivious purposes seems a bit silly to me. I suspect most gay men would like to see young gay men (or women) in a world where they are able to be comfortable with their own sexuality, rather than facing discrimination, ridicule, or abuse.

[Abd]

Consider the Catholic Church and paedophiles, as example. It's much like Wikipedia. You can do any personal damage you like to individuals, and it's never as bad as attacking the "government" or powerz-that-be, directly. They'll protect you from your personal problems, if you're an insider. But become an outsider, and you're subject to the ultimate punishments that they have, even if all you did, was insult them. Priests that spoke out against the Church were excommunicated. Priests who molested children but didn't attack the church, were merely moved to someplace else.

Human institutions are all alike when power is their only goal.

Milton's comment is a generic truth, showing that both the Church and Wikipedia are human institutions. The analysis is cogent. Intelligent Catholics understand this, and church doctrine, if I'm correct, also addresses it. I.e., the Church is not considered infallible in all matters. It's a human institution, albeit one with a role that is considered to transcend that; it is only in that role that believing Catholics consider it infallible.

(And many do question this as well.)

There is a somewhat analogous infallibility doctrine in Islam: the "consensus" is considered infallible. I actually agree with this as a practical matter, but not as an absolute one. I.e., the consensus, if it is real, if it is a consensus of the knowledgeable -- lots of fudge factor room there! -- should be "treated" as if true or proper.

But errors can be made, particularly because fact or argument may be overlooked, and, because it must be necessary to be able to correct them, a view that is "contrary to consensus" is not heretical as such, though, to not be disruptive ("disruption" is a problem in itself, i.e., as in the Qur'anic injunction to "not insult their gods," i.e., don't gratuitously insult what people believe, even if you know it's hooey), a challenge to established consensus should be stated with caution.... It is only heresy tenaciously asserted after being considered by the knowledgeable, in depth, and rejected. And what "consensus" means has always been the problem.... the sects become sects because they define their own experts and exclude all the others....

The real point of Milton's post was not about the Catholic church, but about Wikipedia. What happened at Wikipedia should not have been a surprise. I'd been studying organizational structure for years, and I wasn't surprised! I did think that there might be an opportunity to move beyond this stage, but I certainly didn't think that this would be easy or certain of success.

[Abd]

By the way, Milton - the Church excommunicate on heresy quite easily.

Depends on whom you offend. From my point of view, of course, the entire Catholic church (and more than the Catholic church) is rooted in a peculiar heresy, a "mystery" that inherently departs from the tradition in which it supposedly arose, but .... never mind!

People do get stuck on old mistakes. Fortunately, we are not saved by our theology. Perhaps in spite of it.

FYI, the Inquisition was started to purge monasteries and the clergy of those embracing strange sexual practices.

Is it heresy to lie about history? To repeat unquestioningly, propaganda that is almost a thousand years old?

Quite a few people were those preaching that marriage was evil, that adultery was okay, etc.

Therefore, for their own good, we burn them at the stake, torture them until they confess, etc. Better that they suffer now than in the next life, eh? We were just being kind to them, it's a tough job, but someone has to do it.

Pedophiles would fit into that definition (as with any breaking of the vow of chasity). So, a solution would be to bring back the Inquisition.

From Ottava, I'd expect to see a smiley face if he wasn't serious.... Isn't this what he's been about? Prosecuting sexual heretics?

Anyway, they tried to remove two priests in California for stuff who sued. All sorts of loony things. I think they now have a streamline process for it, but you have to remember that 99% of the incidents happened between 1960 and 1985, so they were still dealing with the Vatican 2 transition. Also, an extremely high rate of the offenders were non US born individuals.

Wow! Toss in some xenophobia for good measure. Obviously, red-blooded Americans wouldn't do this kind of stuff. Just those dissolute foreigners.

I don't mind, at all, people defending the Catholic Church, a beloved institution for many, but I do mind when they become offensive in the process.

There is no "right to edit," but there is a presumed warranty of fairness involved, that's my legal theory. Wikipedia solicits labor, and the quid pro quo is that presumed warranty. It's thin, but it's all we've got.

However, be that as it may, Wikipedia has no obligation at all to ban "pedophiles," "neo-nazis," "crazies," "criminals," "Catholics," "Jews," "Muslims," or "ornithologists."

It does have some responsibility to avoid abuse of the site by anyone, certainly for illegal purpose. Fortunately, that can be based on actual on-site behavior. For Wikipedia to develop an off-wiki investigation process to identify member of any of these reprehensible categories would be ... expensive, time-consuming, and would, if volunteer-based, attract the most deranged of editors, those who take pleasure in accusing others of offenses. Some of these even imagine themselves to be ... "Christians."

And it would expose Wikipedia to real liability in many ways.

Going beyond addressing actual evidence of on-wiki abuse (or off-wiki abuse rooted in on-wiki connections, as an extreme) is a Bad Idea. That someone is, allegedly or actually, a pedophile (which refers to preference, not to action), a homosexual (ditto), or heterosexual (double ditto) is no evidence of any misbehavior or behavioral intent whatsoever. I'm a parent, I'm a male heterosexual, and, hey, what about my daughters? What about all those female editors, some of them underage?

Believe it or not, the police were called to investigate when, in a meeting of a 12-step program, I acknowledged how wonderful it felt when my two adopted daughters, one Chinese, one Ethiopian, fell asleep, one with her head on one shoulder of mine, the other's head on the other shoulder. The police are obligated to investigate, and I thanked the officer. Who could not, of course, tell me who had violated the confidence, but I did know, it was obvious. At the next meeting, I talked about what had happened, and the woman came up to me later -- I had not mentioned her name -- and apologized.

Honi soit qui mal y pense. She was crazy, I understood that.

The difference is that Ottava would never apologize.

[Abd]

One obvious influence would be individuals interested in the homosexualization of youth. Post-NAMBLA crawling its way out of the Gay Rights movement and attempting to claim equivalent "rights", the whole gay men/pedophilia debate has become political hotbed reflected even in the academia done around it. It is in the collective interest of gay men to homosexualize younger males and that risk crossing the line into pedophilia ... although they would argue to the grave against the idea.

I, too, protest this grossly offensive stereotyping of homosexuals, the Gay Rights movement, and the linking of "gay" with pedophilia, a particular libel that should have been dead a long time ago.

By the way, I've known "pedophiles," though only those who were attempting to move beyond it. Complicated. One of these people, facing prosecution, privately admitted to me what a mistake it had all been, he'd rationalized it all to himself as "love" and a good thing, but then he realized that he was creating a secret, between his underage "friend" and the friend's parents, as well as between the "friend" and society as a whole, and this was very much not good.

It's possible to argue for the removal of age restrictions on sex, based on the practices of his or that culture, here and there, but we are talking about children who live and will grow up in a culture which very much does not accept sexual relations between children and adults, with some fuzziness only about the edges. Part of the sexual liberation movement has been the realization of people that they need to stop hiding what they feel and what they do; but this collides with strong social morays especially, still, when children are involved.

I was involved in counseling, once, a gay Muslim. Now, he had a problem! His plan was to act out his "preferences" now, but then, a little later, he'd go back to Malaysia and marry a nice Malaysian girl, and have kids. I asked him if he'd tell his future wife and her family about his history. Of course not! So he was planning to set up conditions where he'd be concealing his past. From his wife. To my mind, this was a form of self-torture.

There was, in his imagination, no way in which he could win, he was going to burn one way or the other.... it was absolutely no wonder that he was acting out.

I pointed out that the central problem he faced was a deeply spiritual one, his lack of trust in reality (God, Allah, whatever you call it). I made sure that he connected with sexual addiction recovery programs, because his behavior was neither acceptable by his religion, nor by what he wanted in his heart, a satisfying relationship with a man. He was seeking out strangers in parks, etc., very dangerous behavior, and he knew it. That's addiction, pure and simple.

It was fueled by his belief that he couldn't have anything better. I pointed out that heterosexuals who were not married faced exactly the same immediate situation, religiously. "But they have hope," he replied.

He had boxed himself in with a set of beliefs that limited the possibilities. What he needed was acceptance, of himself and his situation, and trust in something greater than himself....

standard twelve-step answer, in fact.

Now, about this Wikipedia addiction.....

[KD Tries Again]

If I only have time to read one of those three posts, which would you recommend?

[Milton Roe]

By the way, Milton - the Church excommunicate on heresy quite easily. FYI, the Inquisition was started to purge monasteries and the clergy of those embracing strange sexual practices. Quite a few people were those preaching that marriage was evil, that adultery was okay, etc. Pedophiles would fit into that definition (as with any breaking of the vow of chasity). So, a solution would be to bring back the Inquisition.

Oh, please. Heresy is preaching sin, not DOING sin. The first is what the Church hates. The second is the source of all the church's power-- the people who secretly sin and hate themselves and look to the church to forgive them. If it weren't for that, the Church's influence would largely cease to exist.

Put another way: it's not guilt-ridden sinners that threaten the church; rather such people are its bread and butter. At some level, the church needs them badly. What threatens the church, is people redefinning "sin" to be something else. Particularly something the church then can no longer use to get money, influence, and power by forgiving (since there's now nothing to forgive, so far as the heretics go). Look how much mileage the church has gotten from masturbation! Almost as much as Wikipedia.

Oh, they'll excommunicate you as a priest if you preach anything so tame as the right of preists to marry in the normal way, and then defy the Holy See when they tell you stop that. But secret pedophiles who felt bad about it, were coddled endlessly, because (at least so long as the problem was kept from the public) they weren't a threat to the church at all. The church didn't give two figs for what happened to young boys personally.

Of course, when pedophiles because a major public embarassment for the church, all that has changed somewhat. But again, this is due to the threat to the power of the church as an institution from the Bad Press. It's not because more damage is being done to the victims. And it's got nothing whatever to do with heresy.

[Abd]

If I only have time to read one of those three posts, which would you recommend?

That's easy. None of them. If you have so little time, what are you doing reading Wikipedia Review?

Honestly, folks, I have a limited amount of time. If someone read one of those posts and thought it worth reading, let us know, help KD out. I don't have time to review them. Most of what I write is not for everyone, so, my recommendation: read the first few words and if not inspired to read more, skip it. It probably is not for you. No blame.

[lilburne]

Cells in the Palace of the Inquisition - Vittoriosa Malta.

From what I recall the Inquisition was mostly involved in ferreting out backsliding converts from Judaism.




And burning Young Girls for wearing trousers.

[GlassBeadGame]

Cells in the Palace of the Inquisition - Vittoriosa Malta.

From what I recall the Inquisition was mostly involved in ferreting out backsliding converts from Judaism.




And burning Young Girls for wearing trousers.

My understating is the I-Team got busy after the fall of Islamic Granada. The Muslims were tolerant of Jews but once conquered by the Very Catholic Kingdom forced conversion was on hand for both Muslims and Jews and backsliders hunted down. Of course this was just before the time the Conquistadors trailed priests in their wake and soon the same I-Team was rooting out idols and heretics in the remains of Mesoamerican civilizations.

[SB_Johnny]

If I only have time to read one of those three posts, which would you recommend?

That's easy. None of them.

Good call!

Honestly, folks, I have a limited amount of time.

If that's a fact, it's not readily apparent.

[Ottava]

Why do people think the Spanish Inquisition was the only Inquisition or even the first?

o.O

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inqu...retic_movements

"The spread of heretic movements from the 12th century, can be seen at least in part as a reaction to the increasing moral corruption of the clergy, which included illegal marriages and the possession of extreme wealth. In the Middle Ages, the Inquisition's main focus was to eradicate these new sects. Thus its range of action was predominantly set in Italy and France, where such sects had settled. The two main heretic movements of the period were the Cathars and the Waldensians."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathars

"For the credentes however, sexual activity was not prohibited, but procreation was strongly discouraged, resulting in the charge by their opponents of sexual perversion. The common English insult "bugger" is derived from "Bulgar", the notion that Cathars followed the "Bulgarian heresy" whose teaching included sexual activities which skirted procreation."

"As a consequence of their rejection of oaths, Cathars also rejected marriage vows. Such was the situation, that when called before the Inquisition, one accused of Catharism needed only to show that he was married for the case to be immediately dismissed."



Milton -

"Heresy is preaching sin, not DOING sin. "

Yes, one corrupts others and the other is just a single corruption. So, one is more forgivable. But yeah, the situation is far more complicated. But that doesn't matter so much - would I like the Inquisition be brought back, the priests doing wrong rooted out, and the secular government lighting them on fire? Yes. Thomas Aquinas pointed out that those who practice the most evil need to be executed (Summa 2.2. Q64 Part 2.).


By the way, no one ever mentions this:

"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. After a careful analysis of all the proceedings, including Joan's answers to the allegations, he pronounced null her condemnation. Joan of Arc was eventually canonized in 1920."

This post has been edited by Ottava: Sun 17th October 2010, 10:46pm

[Abd]

Why do people think the Spanish Inquisition was the only Inquisition or even the first?

That's easy. Because they are stupid and ignorant. But why are they stupid and ignorant? Because that way Ottava will be led down the rosy path, believing in his own superior knowledge. It's a test.

Yes, one corrupts others and the other is just a single corruption. So, one is more forgivable.

And thus the religion supposedly based on the teachings of forgiveness becomes a matter of judging what sins are forgivable and what ones are not. Good luck, Ottava, facing the Judge. As you considered others, so shall you be considered.

But yeah, the situation is far more complicated. But that doesn't matter so much - would I like the Inquisition be brought back, the priests doing wrong rooted out, and the secular government lighting them on fire? Yes. Thomas Aquinas pointed out that those who practice the most evil need to be executed (Summa 2.2. Q64 Part 2.).

This truly endears Thomas Aquinas and Ottava to me. To any others? Bring back the Inquisition? No wonder Ottava is always running into trouble! He's 600 years behind the times. Ottava, society moved on, the Church moved on. But you have not. Ah, for the good old days, when we could just torture and burn someone who's opinions we don't like.

By the way, no one ever mentions this:

"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. After a careful analysis of all the proceedings, including Joan's answers to the allegations, he pronounced null her condemnation. Joan of Arc was eventually canonized in 1920."

With every word he writes, it gets worse.

I am *soooo* comforted by this. A rehabilitation trial might happen that exonerates the "heretic" which Ottava has just said should be burned, and, why, 500 years later, she might even be declared a saint! How comforting!

Look, it's great that the Church is going back and at least acknowledging mistakes, that's part of healing. But what's the core here?

Ottava is praising and calling for the execution of heretics. Effectively, of pedophiles. How about homosexuals, after all, aren't they all wannabe pedophiles?

This post has been edited by Abd: Mon 18th October 2010, 3:50am

[SB_Johnny]

But yeah, the situation is far more complicated. But that doesn't matter so much - would I like the Inquisition be brought back, the priests doing wrong rooted out, and the secular government lighting them on fire? Yes. Thomas Aquinas pointed out that those who practice the most evil need to be executed (Summa 2.2. Q64 Part 2.).

Last I heard, the Vatican opposes executions.

This truly endears Thomas Aquinas and Ottava to me. To any others? Bring back the Inquisition? No wonder Ottava is always running into trouble! He's 600 years behind the times. Ottava, society moved on, the Church moved on. But you have not. Ah, for the good old days, when we could just torture and burn someone who's opinions we don't like.

I think he wants to be one of the inquisitors. He's just sharpening his skills in wikiland waiting for the opportunity to do the real thing. Hopefully he won't just go ahead and get started on behalf of the church (since he knows that's what they really need) in the way he does it on behalf of teh community (since he knows that's what they really need).

Of course, something akin to the inquisition is alive and well in taliban-controlled regions, so maybe he can just convert!

By the way, no one ever mentions this:

"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. After a careful analysis of all the proceedings, including Joan's answers to the allegations, he pronounced null her condemnation. Joan of Arc was eventually canonized in 1920."

Yup, I'm sure the first thing the inquisition will do will be to excommunicate arbcom and canonize Ottava. Priorities, priorities.

Ottava is praising and calling for the execution of heretics. Effectively, of pedophiles. How about homosexuals, after all, aren't they all wannabe pedophiles?

I believe he has already referred to them as "gays". Only a troll and a liar would not use the right word to describe those creatures.

[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