Friday, June 6, 2014
Bad Moves
I just wanted to say that I think it was a bad move on Lem's part to squelch further discussion on this 380+ comment thread. I think Fr. Fox has done a remarkable job fending for himself, mostly against Meade. I mean, I think Meade was losing the argument in that thread, and it's important that people make arguments and lose them in free discourse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
463 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 463 Newer› Newest»rcommal, shouldn't you be in bed by now?
No doubt, and shouldn't you also be?
Fred4Pres and PresidentMomJeans are personas created by the same knucklehead who invented "Trooper York".
How do you remember lawnbitch?
I mean, you can't even remember the posts you made the other night, how can you keep track of other people in that fevered retard mind of yours?
Are you ready to come clean and promise to stop trolling Father Martin?
President-Mom-Jeans said...
Are you ready to come clean and promise to stop trolling Father Martin?
Why does Fr. Martin get a pass?
He was happy enough just the other day to chime in with some slanders of an America POW who had been tortured by the Taliban. He should be held to account for his statements just like everyone else.
Because fuck you, that's why.
Utterly arbitrary decision on my part.
Well, so long as its entirely arbitrary, that makes it all OK then.
The point here is that while I generally agree that it is unreasonable to hold religious leaders to a higher standard than the general public it is equally unreasonable to hold them to a lower standard.
The point is that Fr. Martin, who comments under his real name, was told by Meade that one or more of his comments were libelous. It's not a stretch to see an implied threat of legal action there.
What standard of internet commentary is that?
"told by Meade that one or more of his comments were libelous"
No, Chip, that is not accurate. Please copy and paste exactly what I said.
That's my recollection. If I"m wrong, cut and paste the correct version. You apparently have it at your fingertips, bc you're not claiming to rely on your recollection.
Chip S. said...
The point is that Fr. Martin, who comments under his real name, was told by Meade that one or more of his comments were libelous. It's not a stretch to see an implied threat of legal action there.
What standard of internet commentary is that?
I agree all the accusations of libel by anyone are bullshit. And, I respect Fr. Martin for performing what I guess can be called community outreach, if not actual community organizing, under his real name.
I am arguing for the general principle of equality.
Better yet, let's have Fr Martin Fox copy and paste what I said that led to his emotional freak out.
I think Fr. Fox has done a remarkable job fending for himself, mostly against Meade.
But I'm actually not so sure that he did, though. I think a lot of the sympathy he gets is because of the uniform he wears, and the position he holds, as well as the fact that it was Larry he was tussling with.
Subtract those three things and ask yourself if you'd really have felt that he did as well as you believe he did. Which arguments were any more insightful or sound than any of the others that the rest of you all have raised?
It's also funny that you said "fending" as if the observation had to do with feeding himself.
OK, lazyboy, I did it for you:
Blogger Meade said...
Martin,
Looking back over this entire thread, I think I might see the problem.
Here, you posted:
Fr Martin Fox said...
Meade:
"...your loss of power to oppress."
And that's what drove me from Althouse. Being told that I'm an "oppressor."
Last time Meade was here, he was feigning ignorance over any disinvitation.
When you call your guests "oppressors" and bigots and morally cognate terms, they will tend to feel unwelcome...and leave.
June 3, 2014 at 9:19 PM
"Feigning ignorance"? Do priests have the moral authority to know exactly what is or is not in another person's heart and mind? It would seem you think you do, at least in my case.
Please cite for me exactly where I or my wife, Ann Althouse, has ever called you an "oppressor". And in particular, an "oppressor" or "bigot[] and morally cognate terms". If you can do it, I will make a sincere public apology to you. If you can't, I think you will need to wonder whether your words in your (June 3, 2014 at 9:19 PM) comment could be reasonably considered to be libelous.
Don't you?
June 6, 2014 at 5:52 PM
And now I'll save you the trouble of explaining how you didn't really call his comment "libelous" bc that charge was contingent on his digging up prior comments of yours. Which is your standard m.o. here. You insist on a standard in which other people must spend their time digging up your precise wording. The fact is that you did use the term "oppression" to characterize bans on same-sex marriage. It's a straightforward application of logic to take that as a claim that Fr. Fox favored the oppression of gays.
This internet lawyering is tiresome. Why don't you comment in good faith?
What standard of internet commentary is that?
The standard of taking responsibility for what you say.
I agree that Larry and Team use dirty tricks all the time. But I also think it's important for Priest to understand that there are standards of civilized behavior in society guided by a secular rule of law that has worked out very successfully. His whole position is to use an incoherent religious law to trump the secular and national legal process, and he needed to be called out on not only that, but the unfair tactics he uses to gain sympathy for it.
I agree all the accusations of libel by anyone are bullshit.
In a practical sense, probably so. But there's no end to where people can go in a technical sense. If anyone should understand that, then Priest should.
And, I respect Fr. Martin for performing what I guess can be called community outreach, if not actual community organizing, under his real name.
That's a good thing, but it doesn't undo the extraordinary damage done by both him and by the bureaucracy he hides behind in both this matter and more than a few others. I would like to see how he accounts for that, but have come to expect that he never would.
I am arguing for the general principle of equality.
It's astounding that you would say something like this on behalf of a man making his presence known simply to oppose equality. And not only when it comes to gays. The very position he holds is given more respect (unequally) for very superficial reasons - i.e. titles.
The worst damage to the cause of equality that Fox represents is the way he gets ordinary members of his flock, such as Trooper York, to hold solidarity with him on the basis of condemning so many others to "hell", as he did even to his friend Sixty here. If that doesn't show you how destructive and warped his cause is, I don't know what will.
We are talking about about a man who hides behind a spiritual bureaucracy that can not gain adherents in a free country, but can only grow through immigration to it from much worse-off countries. We are talking about a man who does his best to represent an organization reliant on shame, fear and arbitrary judgment, and who does so without the least bit of introspection, hesitation or regret in that regard.
Think of what you are defending here.
Firstly, do we know that the poster Fr Fox is the actual Father Fox of Cincinnati?
Secondly, a Catholic priest does not think non-Catholics are going to hell. If Trooper does, he needs to do some reading.
Troops comments about everyone going to hell except Catholics is not accurate.
Troop thinks only Catholics who follow his view of the Church are going to heaven and that excludes even Pope Francis. You also have to be a Yankee and Giants fan.
R&B, my statement defending equality was directed towards ChipS, that Fr. Martin should not be given any more or less of a pass than anyone else. Nothing more.
I understand your anger towards the Church. Although not Catholic I have been married to two Catholic women and it is fair to say I have heard more about the failings of the Church than most living men. This being said, it is unreasonable to tar Fr. Martin with all the failings of the Church just as it is unreasonable for Americans abroad to attacked for all the failings of US foreign policy. Each person should be judged on their merits and the merits of their individual arguments.
deborah said...
Firstly, do we know that the poster Fr Fox is the actual Father Fox of Cincinnati?
In a sense it doesn't really matter, as long as most people take him at his word.
Yes R&B, deborah, Sixty, Lem, we are all damned for one reason or the other.
Of course South Park could be correct on salvation…
ARM said, of me:
He was happy enough just the other day to chime in with some slanders of an America POW who had been tortured by the Taliban. He should be held to account for his statements just like everyone else.
I don't know what remarks you are referring to. I'm going to go look, but really only you know the remarks you have in mind.
I don't believe I uttered any slanders against any POW of the Taliban; for that matter, is it actually clear that Bergdahl -- I assume you mean him -- was a POW in the true sense? Isn't there a huge question of whether he deserted, and perhaps defected? I don't know, but the allegation has been aired pretty openly. Doesn't your claim that he's a POW hinge on answering those other questions?
And in any case, I still would like to know the remarks you had in mind. Thanks.
I disagree w/ pretty much everything you just wrote, Ritmo.
First, wrt to charges of "libel" over issues as flimsy as whether or not someone called someone else an "oppressor", what we're talking about is a "chilling effect" on speech. It's bullshit, pure and simple. The fact that it's possible "in a technical sense" for someone to sue over garden-variety internet commenting is all the more reason to denounce the threat. "Being aware" is the same thing as being cowed by a bully.
Second, in what way is Fr. Fox "hiding behind" the bureaucracy of the Church? This makes no sense to me at all. If you mean that he's invoking extra moral authority by virtue of his position, I just don't see that in his comments. What I see is that he's trying to explain the basis for his views. What's wrong w/ that?
Finally, your characterization of him is pure McCarthyism: a man making his presence known simply to oppose equality. I don't know the man at all, but I haven't read a single comment by him here or elsewhere that indicates this as a goal, let alone his sole goal.
This being said, it is unreasonable to tar Fr. Martin with all the failings of the Church just as it is unreasonable for Americans abroad to attacked for all the failings of US foreign policy.
If Americans going abroad feel uncomfortable accounting for US foreign policy then they could always do a better job clarifying their position on it, and what they would do or have done. I have a lot more respect for immigrants from failed states when they openly state where the citizens or leadership have gone wrong, what the did when they saw the writing on the wall, how they stood up or recognized futility… In short, something to show me they weren't just a sheep and either wrote off the disaster as unsalvageable or did what they could to stop it. Or at least somehow made the strength of their feelings about these failures known. Anything to show that they weren't just a robotic accomplice in the fate of something so great.
Each person should be judged on their merits and the merits of their individual arguments.
Fox's arguments suck. Procreation? Does his church forbid the marriage of post-menopausal women? Does it check for fertility/sterility status? How old and tired. His bullcrap has been called out on multiple occasions over the last decade, just by other people and in response to other people. Fox is late to the game if he thinks he can get away with trotting out these tired canards.
deborah said…
Firstly, do we know that the poster Fr Fox is the actual Father Fox of Cincinnati?
First, Yes, we do. It's in this very thread, @4:09 PM on June 7.
Second, it's "First", not "Firstly." #petpeeves.
"Think of what you are defending here."
Why doesn't Trooper think of Ritno when he defends it?
If Ritno were Christian he would be a Protestant.
Just think about dat.
Second, in what way is Fr. Fox "hiding behind" the bureaucracy of the Church? This makes no sense to me at all. If you mean that he's invoking extra moral authority by virtue of his position, I just don't see that in his comments. What I see is that he's trying to explain the basis for his views. What's wrong w/ that?
Fox has indicated that I'm beneath his addressing me, which I think is an outlandish comment for a supposedly spiritual person to make. At the least, he could say what I did wrong to offend him, as I indicated I was interested in hearing. I'd made it clear that I would have apologized, but now it's painfully evident to me that what he requires is not personal amends for the various wrongs and slights that people inevitably inflict on each other during the course of their lives, but a form of respect that goes way beyond that.
It is this form of arbitrary respect that has caused most intelligent Catholics I know to express if not the stultifying sense of anger that ARM raises, then some form of irreparable psychological damage.
Spiritual bureaucracies are no longer needed in this day and age, but that's unfortunately precisely what gives "the Church" its power - perceived or otherwise. It's all about the sense of hierarchy. They call it "community", but every fair, just, enlightened and salvation-offering communities that I know of eschew that sort of hierarchy completely.
He just strikes me as a pharisee who struggles at times to show humanity. Not by empathizing and trying to actually understand others, but by mundane things like a night out at a restaurant. Yawn.
Rhythm and Balls said...
If Americans going abroad feel uncomfortable accounting for US foreign policy then they could always do a better job clarifying their position on it, and what they would do or have done. I have a lot more respect for immigrants from failed states when they openly state where the citizens or leadership have gone wrong, what the did when they saw the writing on the wall, how they stood up or recognized futility… In short, something to show me they weren't just a sheep and either wrote off the disaster as unsalvageable or did what they could to stop it. Or at least somehow made the strength of their feelings about these failures known. Anything to show that they weren't just a robotic accomplice in the fate of something so great.
OK. This is a pretty good argument in the abstract. Even though I actually went out and protested against the Iraq war, to some degree as a US citizen I am a robotic accomplice to the millions of unnecessary killings in Iraq.
The problem in the real world is that we each have to balance the good and bad of every organization we belong to. For me to leave the US over the Iraq war would require me to discount all the positive things the US represents. Members of the Church, particularly the nuns, face these same kinds of decisions all the time and make a similar calculus.
We do not live in a world that lends itself to ideological purity, even if we are so inclined.
Spiritual bureaucracies are no longer needed in this day and age, but that's unfortunately precisely what gives "the Church" its power - perceived or otherwise. It's all about the sense of hierarchy. They call it "community", but every fair, just, enlightened and salvation-offering communities that I know of eschew that sort of hierarchy completely.
The bureaucratic structure of the RC church is what makes it a global organization. This means that--AFAIK--it engages in a fair amount of redistribution from people in wealthy countries to people in poor countries. Even in the US, the church subsidizes the operation of pretty good schools in poor neighborhoods. What decentralized faiths to those things on that scale? (I'll admit that I don't know; these are just my impressions.)
As someone who favors private charity over action by the state whenever possible, I like this. Of course, since you worship the state, I can see why you don't like this.
deborah said...
Firstly, do we know that the poster Fr Fox is the actual Father Fox of Cincinnati?
Well. People can believe whatever they like, of course, but this seems to me to be an interesting opportunity to reflect on the nature of empirical data, the reasoning process involving the same, and the related probabilities.
Let's consider what actual facts we have:
> I have a Blogger account, under which this mysterious me posts.
> A picture of a man in clerical attire appears. I will leave it to others to surmise the age and weight of the person depicted.
> The name links to a blog, which -- if anyone cares to look -- has been in operation since 2005. And, if anyone cares to, it includes quite a lot of biographical data. The experiences of the "Father Martin Fox" whose blog it is, his various assignments, homilies, projects, travels, as well as various opinions, etc. It's a treasure-trove of data.
> Over the years, the blog clearly notes changes of address due to various assignments at various parishes. The parishes and their locations are clearly named; other people are named. All these things are easily checked to see if they are accurate. For example, the current assignment is named.
> Now, let's pose various hypotheses. The obvious one: that I am the same Father Martin Fox in reality. But if not, then what?
It seems there are two/three possibilities:
1) There is no Father Martin Fox in existence as a Catholic priest. He is entirely made up.
2) There was a Father Martin Fox, but no longer; he's dead or defrocked or otherwise no longer present in this space-time continuum.
3) There is a Father Martin Fox, but the online persona is not him, but an impostor.
In any of these cases, the facts are ridiculously easy to verify; therefore, the risk for any imposture is huge.
Note, again, that the blog has an archive going back nine years.
I am not particularly adept at calculating probabilities, but what does your common sense say about the probability of an imposture succeeding all this time?
Even though I actually went out and protested against the Iraq war, to some degree as a US citizen I am a robotic accomplice to the millions of unnecessary killings in Iraq.
These two clauses don't match. One negates the other.
The problem in the real world is that we each have to balance the good and bad of every organization we belong to.
For some organizations, whatever good they're perceived to do is greatly inflated in contrast to the bad. But we stick with them because of the affection we have for them and for the nostalgia they offer - long past the expiration point of whatever disproportionate good they could ever claim to have done.
We do not live in a world that lends itself to ideological purity, even if we are so inclined.
And ideological purists are more likely to be a part of the church or interested in challenging it or seeing it offer to at least reform itself of its horrifying shortcomings?
But you admit to having married two scarred Catholics so I suppose your answer would be biased. Just not sure in which way. ;-)
Just google fox fr martin homosexuality.
If you go to his blog and do a search on "homosexuality", you'll find him considering the question "what is the proper ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals for admittance to seminary".
That was 2005 on his blog. I quit reading before coming across his coming up with the proper numbers so I can't say whether he ever did come out with them.
It might be 20:80 or 90:10 for all I know. Also, for all I know, he would have them dancing on the head of a pin.
ARM said…
I am a robotic accomplice to the millions of unnecessary killings in Iraq
Got a source for that astonishing claim? (I mean "millions", not "I am…robotic"). Wiki don't say that.
Yeah, it's OT, but I dislike this sort of casual "fact" dropping in random places.
Clearly, ever since the extremely costly coverups of the priest abuse cases became public, the institution has been scurrying to figure out how to deal with the "homosexuality" within its ranks.
About time.
Of course, since you worship the state, I can see why you don't like this.
Chip's most desperate admission that he can't defend the Church as an organization on any grounds other than its charitable works.
All the foregoing was unnecessary, Chip. All you had to say is that you can't defend its wrongs or even its existence on any other terms.
And as for Church and State, it's the height of historical ignorance to pretend that the Church is uninterested in power. It IS a state, you whackamadoo. Hello? And before the reformation, it was much more intimately tied up in the affairs of state than any entity of which we know. It practically was an arm of the state.
Perhaps some Catholics or priests have nostalgia for that state of affairs. But in your zeal, you seem to have conveniently forgotten the sort of state-emulating and state-guiding powers that gave them their power in the first place.
The Catholic bureaucracy simply worships a different state than the modern secular version: Its own state.
Firstly, firstly is acceptable.
Secondly, I've seen a lot of stuff on the internets, Fr. Fox. I guess I should just give you a ring-dingy to verify.
I think it's been trying to deal w/ pederasty, not homosexuality.
There's a big difference, you know.
hip S. said...
Got a source for that astonishing claim? (I mean "millions", not "I am…robotic"). Wiki don't say that.
How about 'hundreds of thousands of casualties'? That make you feel better?
I'm watching the NASCAR race from Pocono.
The race is very much like arguing with a liberal. Left turn after left turn after left turn. Around and around in the same circle, covering the same ground over and over. Then someone hits the wall, loses his temper, and wants to throw his helmet and stomp his foot in anger.
If the state were to prosecute a serial child molester on the city council who happened to be wealthy and contribute greatly to charitable works in the city, I suppose Chip would oppose that move because, after all, the state is a bad thing. One must choose sides, you see. Not causes. Sides.
Chip's most desperate admission that he can't defend the Church as an organization on any grounds other than its charitable works.
The principal reason you and I squabble here is that you insist on seeing commentary as a team sport. So you frequently ascribing views or motives to me that I do not have.
I'm not trying to "defend the Church". I'm trying to discuss the issues in this thread. You said that a hierarchical structure was inferior to a decentralized one. I pointed out that the Church's structure enabled it to do some things that you would presumably endorse.
I can't find a 4:09 PM on June 7.
ChipS, Meade likes to get people to do stuff for him because he's on call 24/7 @ home. "Honey, I need another Depends, NOW!!"
How about 'hundreds of thousands of casualties'? That make you feel better?
Why, yes, as a matter of fact. That's an order of magnitude less human misery.
Also, I prefer accuracy to gross inaccuracy.
Chip S. said...
Also, I prefer accuracy to gross inaccuracy.
Not if you work as an economist you don't.
I can't find a 4:09 PM on June 7.
Oops. 4:30.
I'm cleaning my kitchen w/ Formula 409 bw comments.
There's a link there that will give you an email address you can use to ask the Real Fr. Fox if he comments here. Or you can call the parish office.
Not if you work as an economist you don't.
Let me state for the record: I am not Thomas Piketty.
The principal reason you and I squabble here is that you insist on seeing commentary as a team sport. So you frequently ascribing views or motives to me that I do not have.
"Of course, since you worship the state, I can see why you don't like this."
Interesting hypocrisy there, Chip. Did you realize the second quote actually preceded the first?
I know no apologies or retractions will be forthcoming - even though an honest person would offer as much. I suppose that must reflect your view of commentary as a "personal" and quaint thing.
I'm not trying to "defend the Church".
I don't think anyone here can.
I'm trying to discuss the issues in this thread.
They can't be separated from that, though.
You said that a hierarchical structure was inferior to a decentralized one.
Usually, yes. Certainly in matters of moral authority they almost always are.
I pointed out that the Church's structure enabled it to do some things that you would presumably endorse.
Then it doesn't require the ideological/theological rigidity and disproportionate self-preservation instincts it embodies to do that. Tons of NGOs do the same. If their "structure" is similar though, it certainly doesn't involve tons of little foot-soldiers to be deployed into people's communities so as to convince them that they're going to hell if they have any problem with the way the organization works or its mission.
But I suppose that's why they're not as powerful.
Meade said...
Just google fox fr martin homosexuality.
You have become the mirror image of Chicklit, everything is always about the gays. There is a world beyond gayness that you all might want to consider.
Chip S. said...
Let me state for the record: I am not Thomas Piketty.
I can't remember anyone suggesting that you had written a seminal work on wealth inequality. For all I know, however, you may be French.
Now, for anyone who is interested, here's why I post under my own name, and as a priest. It was a deliberate decision which I have, at times, reconsidered, but not reversed.
1. Part of being a priest (if I am a priest! Inquiring minds want to know!) is to be a public figure who goes out into the marketplace to make Christ known. That's what the blog associated with this screen name says.
2. Posting anonymously or, perhaps better, "pseudonymously," while perfectly legitimate, poses a couple of hazards. First, one can forget himself, and behave badly under the cover of anonymity. Second, ones anonymity can be "decloaked" -- and that can be a matter of embarrassment, or intimidation, or discredit.
3. A particular aspect of Catholic theology, which is not universal to all Christians, is that the sacrament of holy orders imparts a true and irremovable change in the man who is ordained. This is something that most Catholics know, even if they can't explain it in theological terms. The ordained -- deacon, priest or bishop -- is a different man. And the priest (and bishop) are -- we believe -- configured to Christ in a particular, and I repeat, unchangeable, way.
One of the many upshots of this is that a priest is always a priest; even a disgraced priest, removed from ministry and prevented from presenting himself as a priest, cannot undo that change in his soul effected at his ordination: "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek."
So the title "Father," while itself a development arising, probably, from Irish custom, is not absolutely necessary, the ontological reality -- of being a priest -- always goes with the man. It's not a job, but an identity.
This may be a flawed analogy, but: think of the married person and his or her wedding ring, as a symbol of his or her being married.
4. So, with all this in mind, I made the decision -- assuming I am telling the truth that I'm a priest! -- that I should present myself to the world not "undercover," but as I am. That doesn't mean I have to; or that I'd be wrong to do otherwise. I don't consider myself obliged to do exactly the same everytime I post a comment somewhere online. But -- again, you can only take my word -- I don't post as "Father Martin Fox" and some other pseudonymous screen name on Blogger, or in any other online forum. If I choose to post under a pseudonym, there's nothing unethical, so long as I don't try to "sock puppet" by posting as two persons in the same setting, or otherwise try to play games. If this is mistaken, I'd like to know: because the ethics of this sort of thing are still fairly new, aren't they?
In case there is some question about this: I'm not expecting anyone else to believe what Catholics believe about priests. We believe a priest has this "ontological character," and I act accordingly. I don't assume others believe it, although I would be delighted to persuade you -- i.e., of the truth of the Catholic Faith.
But the upshot of that is, I don't ask anyone to accord me any courtesy or deference other than that which arises out of general good manners. I try (but often fail) to do the same.
If I ever meet the Queen or a future King of England, I imagine I will follow the usual protocol, bow and call him or her "Your Majesty"; not because I accept him or her as my sovereign, or because I'm rejecting the American Revolution, but simply as a courtesy to all involved, including the British people. I'd treat the Dalai Lama in a similar fashion, despite my certainly not embracing Buddhism and not believing him to be a reincarnation of anything.
But people call me by my first name often enough; either because we're friends or family, or because they just aren't comfortable with the title, and I don't make a thing about it.
Just as an aside: having your own father, call you father, is an astounding experience. Profoundly humbling, as are many other courtesies that Catholics pay to priests that non-Catholics (and, sadly, many Catholics) don't understand.
Finally: all this reminds me of how some people react to a priest in a cassock, or in a clerical collar. It bothers them. A LOT. And they'll tell the priest, to his face.
When that happens, that isn't about the priest. It's about that person. I'm sorry some people have their "issues." I'll help if I can. But in the end, they are their issues, not mine.
Interesting hypocrisy there, Chip.
My words were chose carefully. In RitmoSpeak the wording would've been, "Since you're a liberal, you must worship the state." My wording represented my inference from the body of your work here and elsewhere.
If you don't prefer state redistribution over private charity, I will gladly retract that gibe. Just let me know.
AReasonableMan said...
You have become the mirror image of Chicklit, everything is always about the gays.
This is libelous. You only notice when I mention gay issues. You ignore the other 99%.
Let me be the first to say, here's one of the great typos of all time:
My words were chose carefully.
Anyways, it's interesting that these sorts of threads can go on and on. Obviously, there is a deep-seated need to air the issues.
Carry on!
Shorter 1:25 PM, part #3:
Respect mah authoritah! It's permanent!!!
Yep. No problems that could arise from that.
I can't remember anyone suggesting that you had written a seminal work on wealth inequality.
FYI, "seminal" doesn't mean "using questionable data".
One more thing:
Normal human beings generally know that sometimes, there are people you decide you will no longer attempt to converse with, for various reasons.
There are, indeed, some folks who post here, who I have decided I am no longer going to attempt conversation with.
That that should come as a shock to anyone strikes me as implausible.
I have to agree with R&B on this one, ChipS. You are more predictably on a team, Team Free Enterprise, than most people who post here.
chickelit said...
This is libelous.
Another similarity to Meade ;)
Finally: all this reminds me of how some people react to a priest in a cassock, or in a clerical collar. It bothers them. A LOT. And they'll tell the priest, to his face.
The Franciscan friars down the road from me here still dress in the classic brown habits. They do lots of public outreach in Oceanside.
In fact, I don't need to explain why I don't attempt conversation with some folks. As the saying goes, res ipsa loquitur. Usually pretty prominently in the thread.
My wording represented my inference from the body of your work here and elsewhere.
Retract it for the sake of your own honesty, if you have any. I "worship" no physical or social entity of which I'm aware.
Liberals are simply utilitarian about state power, not ideological. It depends on the circumstance. But since you are ideologically wedded to state destruction, you apparently seem to require the use of insulting and incorrect accusations to further a cause that elections won't allow for.
I shouldn't even entertain any of this, as it allows Chip to distract from the issue at hand. But everyone deserves to tell the truth. Even if Chip resents hearing it.
If you don't prefer state redistribution over private charity, I will gladly retract that gibe. Just let me know.
Again, I have no preference for who does what. It's about what works well. Yes, you should retract it. If and where public resources are shown to detract from the more effective provision of private generosity, then I should and would oppose the former. Utilitarians can allow for distinctions like this. I'll say it here - stop any government action that hinders the effectiveness of an available private-sector response. It's official. It's on record. Ritmo said it.
Does that make you happy?
Chip S. said...
FYI, "seminal" doesn't mean "using questionable data".
From Piketty himself:
"Let me start by saying that the reason why I put all excel files on line, including all the detailed excel formulas about data constructions and adjustments, is precisely because I want to promote an open and transparent debate about these important and sensitive measurement issues."
Hard to be much fairer or open than this.
Normal human beings generally know that sometimes, there are people you decide you will no longer attempt to converse with, for various reasons.
"Various" sometimes means, "they can comment publicly on my publicly posted comments and that's soooo unfair!"
In a democratic (non-Vatican) society, debate is crucial and furthers the health of the society. Certain people don't understand this and instead try to personalize the public, within the confines of their permanent position of authority. A good reason for why so many people would never want to be Catholic.
There are, indeed, some folks who post here, who I have decided I am no longer going to attempt conversation with.
Because your unsupportable views don't gain traction when you do this. I think Trooper York said it was easier if you just call them emissaries of the Devil, which I figure you're tempted to do, but won't because at the very base level of things, you recognize the PR of your job and employer would suffer even more greatly if you did that. So just throw out the "no comment" instead. Wise move, but not one that helps what you say you're trying to do.
That that should come as a shock to anyone strikes me as implausible.
More bureaucratic, impersonal, passive mood speak for someone too much the Pharisee to tell us how he really feels, let alone have the courage to analyze why.
AReasonableMan:
Earlier you claimed I "chime[d] in with some slanders of an America POW who had been tortured by the Taliban. He should be held to account for his statements just like everyone else."
I am asking again, what comments of mine are you referring to? Only you can tell us what you are thinking.
Is my request unreasonable? Howso?
Hard to be much fairer or open than this.
That's very true. Quite admirable.
But it doesn't equal "accuracy", as I think has already been shown.
Same thing goes for Reinhardt and Rogoff. That they owned up to their mistake is admirable. But that doesn't mean their initial conclusions hold up.
Like I said, it's only possible to apologize to Mr Fox if he could tell you what the apology would be for.
But he backs away from that and just declares certain conversations "unproductive".
People in positions of unearned authority, I suppose, might often feel that the danger of "unproductive" conversations lurk about in the most unsuspecting of places. It's the need to hide from engagement on the issues, or handicap challenges to them immensely, that causes this.
Evi L. Bloggerlady said...
Troops comments about everyone going to hell except Catholics is not accurate.
Troop thinks only Catholics who follow his view of the Church are going to heaven and that excludes even Pope Francis. You also have to be a Yankee and Giants fan.
That is exactly right. You get me!
Liberals are simply utilitarian about state power, not ideological. It depends on the circumstance. But since you are ideologically wedded to state destruction, you apparently seem to require the use of insulting and incorrect accusations to further a cause that elections won't allow for.
Thanks for the perfect example of what I'm talking about. What comment of mine can you recall (no need to quote directly, I'll rely on your integrity) calling for "state destruction"? Hint: There is none. Just bc I'm more libertarian than most people here, you accuse me of being an anarchist. You're so easily unhinged by disagreement, Ritmo, that I think you should seek help.
As for ARM's comment about "Team Free Enterprise," that's fair enough. Yes, my presumption is that competition will deliver better results than state provision. But Ritmo's flailings go well beyond that, to ascribing views to me about all manner of things that go well beyond my simple little null hypothesis.
To put it simply, being opposed to single-payer health systems ≠ "state destruction".
Again, I have no preference for who does what. It's about what works well. Yes, you should retract it. If and where public resources are shown to detract from the more effective provision of private generosity, then I should and would oppose the former. Utilitarians can allow for distinctions like this. I'll say it here - stop any government action that hinders the effectiveness of an available private-sector response. It's official. It's on record. Ritmo said it.
OK, I retract my prior statement.
Does that make you happy? I do hope so.
Are non-Pharisees above even apology?
Does it not strike anyone as arising from a sense of superiority to avoid receiving apology, to avoid explaining how you've felt offended or wronged, to avoid describing what you fear would damage or detract from what's important to you if you were to discuss an issue important to you with someone?
Democratize! (I kid).
But seriously, I think there are certain fears here that could benefit from their being revealed. When disengagement is so blunt, so obscurely explained, and so honest an appeal for momentarily deviating from it requested, what fears could be motivating it?
Hugs all around!
what fears could be motivating it?
Maybe he just has better uses for his time.
Unlike most of us.
Fr Martin Fox said...
I am asking again, what comments of mine are you referring to?
Well, I thought the weasel words you used in your recent post sufficiently addressed the issue in question.
Let me remind you:
"for that matter, is it actually clear that Bergdahl -- I assume you mean him -- was a POW in the true sense? Isn't there a huge question of whether he deserted, and perhaps defected? I don't know, but the allegation has been aired pretty openly. "
Firstly, allegation isn't fact.
Secondly, in my view the small 'c' christian thing to do when the mob loses its collective moral bearings is to attempt to tamp down their destructive urges not provide some helpful links to egg them along, as you did. But maybe I am holding you to a higher standard, which I have already conceded is unreasonable.
Thirdly, he was held for five years by the Afghan Taliban, sometimes in solitary, sometimes he was tortured after attempting to escape. How about cutting the guy and his parents some slack until the military gets around to deciding what to do.
Yes, I'm happy Chip. ;-)
Good! Let's be emigos!
I do get you. I hope you are wrong, because the Yankees are a bridge too far for me.
And if you are right, may the Lord forgive me.
Which is why I cover my bets by avoiding negative comments about DiMaggio, Gehrig, Ruth…hell, even Yogi.
I haven't read this entire thread, yet..but on comment literally yanked my cord...e.g., A Reasonable Man said...
... an America POW who had been tortured by the Taliban ...
Your evidence please? A link to it at least?
First of all, Bergdahl was under Haqqani Network control, not Taliban. I am more than aware that in asymmetrical warfare the Haqqani Network is to the Taliban as the Viet Cong were to the Peoples Army of Vietnam aka the PAVN, north Vietnamese regular army. Westerners always fail to grasp that the threads that bind are what we face, not some monolithic entity.
In short, prove to me, with some evidence, even scant, a reasonable presumption Bergdahl was tortured, buy Haqqani or Taliban.
It is important top me that a veteran be treated fairly. In my day one didn't get promoted to Sergeant unless someone else died...which is how I made it in 13 months...another man died for my stripes.
If you have evidence of Bergdahl's torture, please share it, it IS important.
I said:
"I am asking again, what comments of mine are you referring to?"
ARM replied:
Well, I thought the weasel words you used in your recent post sufficiently addressed the issue in question.
Let me remind you:
"for that matter, is it actually clear that Bergdahl -- I assume you mean him -- was a POW in the true sense? Isn't there a huge question of whether he deserted, and perhaps defected? I don't know, but the allegation has been aired pretty openly. "
Firstly, allegation isn't fact.
Well, who claimed otherwise? What claims of fact about Mr. Bergdahl did I make that you object to? In the thread the other day, I went to pains to cite published reports which raised questions.
Is you argument, now, that something about Mr. Bergdahl's situation makes even raising these allegations, and asking what they mean, is "slander"?
Secondly, in my view the small 'c' christian thing to do when the mob loses its collective moral bearings
-- sorry, hitting pause button --
There's an assertion without foundation. You are entitled to believe that a "mob" has lost "its collective moral bearings," and interpret current events in that light; but you're not entitled to demand others see things in that way. I don't see it that way. So faulting me for not acting accordingly is unreasonable.
Back to your quote:
...is to attempt to tamp down their destructive urges not provide some helpful links to egg them along, as you did. But maybe I am holding you to a higher standard, which I have already conceded is unreasonable.
Thirdly, he was held for five years by the Afghan Taliban, sometimes in solitary, sometimes he was tortured after attempting to escape. How about cutting the guy and his parents some slack until the military gets around to deciding what to do.
While I don't claim otherwise, just how do you know -- for a fact -- he was tortured? Was he even with the Taliban, or some other gang? It might be a meaningless distinction, or it might not. What, really, do we know about his five years?
I ask this, because you've just made a huge point about not turning allegation into fact. Did you so quickly forget you said that?
And, as far as "weasel words," look: I asked you twice to cite the words you had in mind when you said I offered "slander." Twice you've chosen not to do so; and pointing to words I uttered subsequently doesn't cut it. I think "weasel words" is neeedlessly obnoxious; but they could reasonably be applied to your dodging a direct and reasonable question.
As far as I can see, you've completely failed to substantiate your claim. I offered no "slander."
ARM:
Maybe your point is simply that the whole American public -- me included -- should not be discussing the allegations -- well known -- about Sargeant Bergdahl's movements and actions between his ceasing to be on base, until his release?
Is that what you deem the "small 'c' christian thing to do"?
If so, I think that's extremely unreasonable. I'd be interested if anyone else here feels differently.
Anyone?
It occurs to me to point out just why -- in the other thread -- I was citing those articles.
Because it seemed to me, from your comments, that you called into question even the existence of any qualms, concerns, or allegations of anything in the nature of misconduct, in the case of Sgt Bergdahl.
I cited those news reports -- with links provided -- precisely to keep the discussion in the realm of fact: not that the things he was accused of, were facts; but that the allegations clearly were.
This is ridiculous! You seem to think the whole country isn't allowed to discuss anything not laudatory about Sgt. Bergdahl, "until the military gets around to deciding what to do."
And why should the entire public of this nation be expected to do that? Please explain.
Oh brother. Is someone really questioning whether the group that held Bergdahl in Afghanistan and negotiated with the administration for the release of 5 Taliban prisoners in exchange for his being handed over was indeed the Taliban? The mind boggles.
I suppose that in some, the urge to punish is so much stronger than the urge to forgive that they will twist themselves in pretzels simply to entertain the most abstruse of points - as an intellectual exercise in search of more militant a stance than the most pro-military spokesperson can come up with. Even the luminary pundits of the GOP agree that seeking and securing his release was the right thing to do. (I offer no opinion myself but see no reason to disagree).
Maybe the guy carrying on with this really does have more to do than the rest of us. But I have my doubts. I also see a need on the part of a certain someone to change more than a few subjects recently, for some reason.
This is what I found incredible coming out of the mouth of a priest.
Fr Martin Fox said...
Cutting through the Obama-protecting fog being furiously generated by ARM, we have this report, from the Miami Herald, reposted in the Daily Beast (note, neither is an Obama-bashing outfit, anything but):
Everything is politics to you: 'Obama-protecting fog'. There is no sense of humanity for this US POW or how he might have suffered, or how his parents have suffered. The thread in question was filled with baseless allegations against these conservative Christians and your impulse is to dismiss any attempt at a defense of these people as 'Obama-protecting fog'. Fucking disgraceful.
AReasonableMan:
Thanks for citing it; I was about to post that myself.
So what you're complaining about, is that I was too mean in what I said...about you?
Here, I thought you were offended that I was too critical or unfair toward Sgt. Bergdahl. But what do you cite? A criticism of your comments!
I stand by what I said. Before I said that, you'd gone on at length in defense of President Obama's handling of this situation. I took you to declare everything he did as above reproach: "Obama-protecting fog."
That was about you.
Who was it who said, a bit earlier, that no one should be exempt from fair criticism? Doesn't that include you?
Doesn't anyone in here take off an hour to get laid?
This is what's wrong with marriage - gay or straight - it screws with your focus on what's important.
Fucking disgraceful.
DId you expect otherwise?
As I told you, grace, for him, is a resume-building job requirement. Not an intrinsic quality he values for its own intrinsic sake.
I think sometimes he likes the way the internets allow for him to come on and act like a smart-ass. Of course, so many of the rest of us also enjoy that - but without asking for things to be double-standard-based and appearing in a guise that demands people respect our theological "permanent authoritah".
ARM:
Once again, you assert: "The thread in question was filled with baseless allegations..."
And that's when I cited actual news articles, in order to rebut your claim -- which you are continuing to make -- that all allegations are "baseless."
The men who served with Sgt. Bergdahl have clearly -- very clearly -- been far more critical of him than I.
Would you say to them what you've said to me? Have you? "F***ing disgraceful"? They have no business to say what they say?
The American people (of which I am one) have no business to pay attention to what they are saying?
There is no sense of humanity for this US POW or how he might have suffered, or how his parents have suffered.
This is grossly unfair. You may have missed Megyn Kelly's interview of 6 of Bergdahls' former comrades in arms, so you may be unaware of what the prez's critics are saying.
Short version: It was OK to trade for him, but he shouldn't have been held up as someone who served honorably. And now he should be court-martialed.
There are quite a few grieving parents involved in this case. Many of them lost their sons forever while looking for this fellow who did in fact leave his post on his own.
ARM:
I think a reasonable inference here could be that you didn't like me criticizing you. So you accuse me of offering slander.
And what do you cite: my criticism of you.
Aridog said...
A link to it at least?
Bergdahl was locked in a shark cage in total darkness for WEEKS, horribly tortured and beaten, say officials as his parents go to ground amid death threats
The issue here is that we have a US POW recovered in a standard swap of POWs at the conclusion of a war. Why demonize this poor guy simply because it was done under Obama's watch?
Beat up on somebody who actually chose to enter the political arena.
ARM is actually Susan Rice, if you didn't already know.
Fr Martin Fox said...
ARM:
I think a reasonable inference here could be that you didn't like me criticizing you. So you accuse me of offering slander.
And what do you cite: my criticism of you.
No, I first cited your own words in this thread, which remain weasel words.
Who was it who said, a bit earlier, that no one should be exempt from fair criticism? Doesn't that include you?
Does it include you?
You're trying to use a big graffiti saying "OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA" from discussing the issues relevant to Bergdahl in the first place.
He's not the one changing the subject. Apparently you are unused to people noticing that politicization of debate points is a diversionary tactic.
The internets have been around a while. Get out there more. People are more hip to what's going on than you believe they realize about you. Things are more transparent than you wish them to be, even things related to how you come across and the approaches you take to discussion.
ARM: "This is what I found incredible coming out of the mouth of a priest..."
Why "of a priest"? What difference does that make?
Weren't you the one, upthread, saying that no one should be treated differently? Same standard?
Priests don't get to comment on politics? Whose rule is that?
The best way to really derail a conversation or movement is to initiate a series of minor squabbles that provokes one's enemies/opponents to distraction.
For instance, see Paul in Acts 23, or a lot of "Church History," or the issue about baking a wedding cake.
"who follow his view of the Church are going to heaven"
With those as standards, I don't think that's heaven you're thinking of. Why's it so warm in here!? Must be all the Yankee love.
ARM: "Beat up on somebody who actually chose to enter the political arena."
Yes; and the thread you brought up for discussion was dominated by complaints about...President Obama.
Because there are questions about whether he handled this situation correctly.
...but he shouldn't have been held up as someone who served honorably. And now he should be court-martialed.
IIRC, even Obama isn't proposing getting getting in the way of this.
Securing release is a different issue from investigating the events of his capture and service.
Why is everyone so hung up on this issue in the first place?
By the way, Happy Pentecost everyone!
Priests don't get to comment on politics? Whose rule is that?
One would wonder if the way in which they go about commenting on politics might reflect the standards which they request everyone recognize them as upholding.
This isn't the first time that people have gotten "hung up on this issue".
It seems to matter.
I said:
ARM:
I think a reasonable inference here could be that you didn't like me criticizing you. So you accuse me of offering slander.
And what do you cite: my criticism of you.
ARM replied:
No, I first cited your own words in this thread, which remain weasel words.
No....you're doing some sleight of hand there.
1. You said I offered "slander" -- in another thread.
2. I politely asked -- twice -- for you to cite the said "slander."
3. Your response to that request was to cite words from this thread -- still no citation of what you had in mind as "slander" (unless you were aware of what I would say later in time -- very unlikely!).
4. I asked ... again.
5. At last, you do cite something (read slowly, this is an important fact) from the thread in question...and what you cited, at this point, was criticism...
Of you.
If the "slander" you mean wasn't my criticism of you, then you still -- after all this -- haven't cited anything to support it.
Still waiting for that.
Look, if you're upset, I'm sorry. That wasn't my purpose. But it was your choice to bring this up, earlier. And when you toss around words like "slander," I'm not being unreasonable to ask you to substantiate that.
And when you talk about "weasel words," it's notable that -- all this time later -- you're still avoiding actually citing anything that you claim was "slander" offered by me.
Father if you can't see anything wrong with your words in the context of that particular thread or the broader politically motivated attack on the Bergdahls I think you are missing something. If you attack the only person defending these people then you are just part of the mob.
But, you are right, you shouldn't be held to a different standard, you were just part of the mob. I shouldn't have expected more.
"Why is everyone so hung up on this issue in the first place?"
Because Obama is an idiot and is so self serving that it outraged the people it effected most. Veterans and soldiers on the front line.
He traded hardened terrorist leaders for a deserter. Made a big Oval office production out of it. And expected to be a hero himself. Now they want to silence or trash his fellow soldiers who knew him best. And the families of the men who died to save this creep.
It is a typical Obama production. But now he has really gone over the line. He wouldn't lift a finger to save our Ambassador but will pull out all stops to free terrorists and bring back a Quisling who was in no danger from his pals.
This was like freeing Goring and Goebbels to get back Tokyo Rose.
You know you are right. Why we getting all upset? That is what Obama is all about.
Regarding the role of one's identity and political commentary:
It's called "professional ethics."
You know, like how we would presume that a doctor commenting on an individual's medical issue wouldn't go out of his way to presume too much of his own personal judgments onto the patient.
Some professions, however, may go about their professional ethics in a different manner, of course, and according to much different standards.
IIRC, even Obama isn't proposing getting in the way of this.
Bergdahl's fellow soldiers were offended by the Rose Garden ceremony, over which Obama had full control.
Isn't it obvious that Obama thought this would be a winning issue for him politically? If so, why is it "mere politics" to engage the issue?
And as far as Obama "getting in the way of this," I think it would be pretty easy for him to have "his principals in his government" send the word to "his generals" that a court-martial would be a bad idea.
We'll see.
Chip S. said...
This isn't the first time that people have gotten "hung up on this issue".
You are making an unproven assumption that he was a deserter. There is currently no unequivocal evidence to support this. He had walked off base several times before. Prior to his capture he was viewed as an 'enthusiastic fighter' by his peers.
I think it's fine to react angrily to the dynamics of the trade-off, hell-raiser York. That is, until you look into them. The Taliban aren't on the terrorist list. "Because Obama is an idiot" is the conclusion you start with as a premise.
Anyway, I agree that it seems unprecedented, except that those Israelis you love do this all the time. For many more terrorists released. And for actual terrorists, not just people you're at war with who aren't on a terrorist list.
Maybe they value their own more, but then, I think the standards of their forces are often different in a more respectable way.
And they're also more democratic. Subordinates can question superiors much more easily.
ARM said:
Father if you can't see anything wrong with your words in the context of that particular thread or the broader politically motivated attack on the Bergdahls I think you are missing something. If you attack the only person defending these people then you are just part of the mob.
But, you are right, you shouldn't be held to a different standard, you were just part of the mob. I shouldn't have expected more.
You were also defending President Obama. Which is fine. But no one gets to find fault with Obama? Absurd.
Note: yet another opportunity for ARM to cite the so-called "slander" come -- and gone.
Look: if you want to withdraw your claim that I offered "slander," I'll happily drop this.
You brought it up, I didn't. I'm simply asking you to explain yourself.
If you'd rather not, say so plainly, please.
You are making an unproven assumption that he was a deserter.
Total bullshit. Read the story I linked to.
What it will show you is that people have cared about the issue of whether military prisoners were or were not deserters. It is indeed germane, and it's not slander to pose the question.
Isn't it obvious that Obama thought this would be a winning issue for him politically?
Maybe so.
If so, why is it "mere politics" to engage the issue?
Yes, your point is taken.
It's also the same mistake Democrats used to make. Engaging the opposition on their silly terms all the time.
So, it probably wouldn't win politically to take it on, but I'm sure Obama loves it when the GOP is provoked into taking on political points that they can't win.
Hence, if we do engage it, why not just stick to the facts and whatever non-political assessment you can get out of it?
ARM:
And, if you were confused about my comments directed to you, were about your defense of...Obama, then perhaps
"Obama-protecting fog" was a helpful clue?"
I genuinely appreciate that you feel this subject very strongly. I take no issue with that. But maybe that's tripping you up here.
ARM.....The issue here is that we have a US POW recovered in a standard swap of POWs at the conclusion of a war. Why demonize this poor guy simply because it was done under Obama's watch?
The fact is this was anything but standard. The law is that Obama had to notify Congress. He did not try to even minimally comply. It is a big bag of bullshit to say they were afraid that it would leak. They were afraid it would leak because they knew how strong the opposition to freeing deadly enemies of the United States wholesale for a deserter.
Even if we accept these lies at face value there were plenty of people who he could have notified such as Senator Feinstein or other ultra-liberal Democrats who would not spill the beans. The thing is even the most liberal congress critters would have a problem with this lopsided fiasco.
It is a debacle from start to finish.
What are you going to say when these terrorist help to kill Americans or bring Afghanistan back under the Taliban's rule? That it was all worth it?
Give me a fucking break.
Does the first 2:59 comment (not Chip's) strike anyone as just a little bit, well, petty?
I mean, I'm about half expecting to see a neener-neener thrown in there.
Banging on about how "you hit me first" doesn't sound like a productive conversation, but then, what do I know about productive conversations.
So, it probably wouldn't win politically to take it on, but I'm sure Obama loves it when the GOP is provoked into taking on political points that they can't win.
AFAIK, this didn't originate w. the GOP, but from Bergdahl's former fellow-soldiers.
Watch this video. These guys are a lot more reasonable and well-spoken than just about anyone else on tv.
If we start doing things the way the Israeli's do then lets start with abolishing the TSA and profiling airline passengers so old ladies and children are not felt up by lazy union employees who look to steal stuff out of your bag.
Last time I flew they stole my size 14 flip flops out of my bag and I know it was this one no good fucking TSA motherfucker. The bitch.
I agree with Trooper's 3:02.
But it just goes to show you how far Obama can go on some of these issues.
What will come of the non-notification?
Probably nothing.
It seems like the fog is the whole ruckus being raised over what he did.
All everyone else wants to focus on, in the prevailing narrative however, is the value with which we pursue the objective of "every last POW".
I'm not commenting on whether it's fair or not, just that this will be the over-riding political narrative.
So yes, I guess I see why some cons are pissed.
TSA abuse is rife and not subject to the profiling the Izzies can do (which is smarter but is easier also because of lower volume). But the system constrains us.
I think they thought it went too far when some chick posted TSA notes they left on her vibrator congratulating her for getting her freak on.
That's the way you fight the system here. Sex it up.
More and more, I think Trooper is onto something.
The problem Ritmo is the difference between what Obama did in Benghazi and what he did in this case.
He refused to left a finger to save our Ambassador and other Americans who were under attack. They didn't even try. Say what you want about Jimmy Carter at least he tried.
So to spike the football because of this douche is really pushing everyone's buttons.
I think the deserter was not the reason for the swap. I think freeing the Taliban guys was the goal. He would have traded them for a Cleon Jones rookie card and a ice tea.
Trooper York said...
To say that these Taliban assholes are not "technically" terrorists is a distinction without a difference.
The Afghan Taliban are the people we went to war against in Afghanistan. They were the rulers of the country. They can hardly be terrorists in their own country. Let's leave aside that we supported them for years to take over the country from the Russians.
So yes, I guess I see why some cons are pissed.
It's not just cons. I think this should be put in the context of all the other criticisms of Obama's unilateral actions.
Let me clarify on Bergdahl (because some of you need my help).
It does not matter if he deserted or was captured, we still want him back. The issue is whether you trade one prisoner for five murderous Taliban generals (who have killed thousands) when the hostilities are not over.
and what did they pay the Haqqanis?
They can hardly be terrorists in their own country.
Wha???
ARM ... when you have some concrete evidence or sworn testimony, not 3rd and 4th party hearsay, in a notorious scandal rag from London, let me know.
For one I am not "demonizing" Begdahl. I am questioning the fandango of his release and celebration in the Rose Garden, in advance of any concrete information beyond "we brought him home."
Personally, I'd rather wait for full information by multiple witnesses...ordinarily who do not have a vested interest in the matter. I can tell you, based uppn my own personal experience, that he was in a combat zone, and one where you do not walk off and away from your weapon. When that is explained I'll willingly listen to the rest of the story. 3rd or 4th party unattributed hearsay so far has been solely self justifying. His platoon mates are not 3rd or 4th party, they are 1st person on the scene witnesses. I'd like the truth. I'd hope you would too.
Fr Martin Fox said...
I genuinely appreciate that you feel this subject very strongly. I take no issue with that. But maybe that's tripping you up here.
No your sophistry is the problem here. Rather than acknowledge that you failed to take a principled stand against the literally insane attacks on the Bergdahls you want to say that it was all just politics and you have every right to discuss politics. But, in asserting that right in that particular context you abrogate any moral authority that you might subsequently seek to assert in any other context. Its all just politics and power to you.
Doesn't seem like a good trade to me.
ARM:
At this point, I am concluding you are not going to offer any citation to support your claim of a "slander" from the other thread -- since the only thing you have cited, was something criticizing you for defending Obama. Hardly a slander.
So I'm fully willing to consider the matter closed, as this is tedious. But note: if you return to this, I'm simply going to ask the same question; and, along the way, highlight how many pixels were "spilled" asking, over and over, for some substantiation.
I'm not willing to let that "slander" thing go unchallenged. I see no reason why anyone should expect that.
Charge made; not substantiated.
I also agree that it's dangerous precedent to do disproportionate exchanges. And that the trade-off quants should consider the value of the prisoners in terms of destructive capability.
But the war's winding down, or so I thought. Wouldn't all that become moot, at some point?
If we were at the height of all this, then sure. But you also have to figure that most people just want to put Afghanistan behind them. Once we're all out except for the token force, how many prisoners should we keep? I honestly don't know what the answer is and appreciate input on that.
If that is what he wanted to do Ritmo then that is what he should do. He should free them if he wanted to improve relations with the Taliban. Not break the law to create a pretext for what he wanted to do in the first place. He should show us the courage of his convictions.
But those are two things that Obama does not posses.
Courage. Convictions.
OBama's also just trying to help clear out Gitmo to argue his credibility on that broken campaign promise.
ARM you said...
They can hardly be terrorists in their own country...
Oh, please. I can tell you've never had to deal with terror, in your country or anywhere else.
No point in continuing a conversation when I am one one page and you are in a total separate book of the world.
And that is really too bad. Neither of us learns a thing that way.
But do take care.
you failed to take a principled stand against the literally insane attacks on the Bergdahls
This is figuratively nonsense.
The only "insane attacks on the Bergdahls" are the alleged death threats. Do people really have to "take a principled stand" against those as a precondition for stating that the guy might be a deserter?
That's literally stupid.
Chip S @ 3:25 pm
If there's a contest for thread-winner, that's pretty good!
They were the former leaders of the country. Are you arguing that they weren't?
I go to the trouble of creating links for your convenience in the apparently vain hope that you'll take even a passing look at the stuff at the link.
So, lazybones, I will tell you that I linked to an encyclopedia entry about the French Reign of Terror. The fact that the terrorists in question ran the government is kind of implicit in the word "Reign."
WTF is wrong w. you? You're not usually this stupid. You must really be worried about the Dems's chances in November.
Apparently, when it's gov't that does it, it's not terrorism.
As in, when the President does it, it's not illegal.
Is that it?
Do people really have to "take a principled stand" against those as a precondition for stating that the guy might be a deserter?
I think they should "take a principled stand" against death threats just to be considered a good American. But I guess that's just me. I'm anti-vigilante when it comes to retributive killing more than the average Taliban is.
Fox, OTOH, seems to cheer the idea that being off the hook when it comes to condemning retributive killing is a good thing. But again, I figure we're a country that should at least aspire to rule of law, and if anyone affiliated with your stance is up to acting on it with extra-legal murder, you go out of your way to prevent it at least as much as any other American would expend whatever effort is necessary to affirm our civilized process for settling disputes.
Caught up in civil and foreign war, the Revolutionary government decided to make “Terror” the order of the day (September 5 decree) and to take harsh measures against those suspected of being enemies of the Revolution (nobles, priests, hoarders). In Paris a wave of executions followed. In the provinces, representatives on mission and surveillance committees instituted local terrors."
--Britannica (emphasis added)
R & B asked ...
Once we're all out except for the token force, how many prisoners should we keep? I honestly don't know what the answer is and appreciate input on that.
My opinion may surprise you. I do not believe we are going to acquire a decent SOFA agreement, therefore NOT ONE American Soldier or Marine should remain in Afghanistan. I mean we should be 100% gone by 31 December 2014. "Period." "Full Stop."
What to do with the remaining crazies in Gitmo? Shoot them all in the head a dawn for all I care...or slit their throats on television as was done to Daniel Pearl.
Actually, none of the above will occur, so turn them all loose...set them "free" on any random beach a vessel can carry them to, on the opposite side of the world from where they were captured.
Oh, wait, we won't do that either...we'll no doubt carry them home and pay them handsomely for the trouble.
I. No. Longer. Care.
Kill them all or send them to Disneyland.
Trooper - Use two browsers!
Chip S, AReasonableman:
I'm sorry, did I miss something?
Were there "death threats" in a thread on this blog, that I participated in?
Is that what we're talking about?
If there were actual death threats -- in the thread, by people here -- then I am genuinely sorry I didn't condemn that.
Is that what you're claiming?
I think they should "take a principled stand" against death threats just to be considered a good American.
Don't forget about murder, rape, robbery, extortion, and blackmail. A good American should take principled stands against those, too.
Preferably every day, right here, before commenting.
Sorry for the double post.
I read the link, it is irrelevant to the issue of POW. The US went to war with the Afghan Taliban. In the process they took POW as did the Taliban. It is not negotiating with terrorists to now exchange POW.
The terrorist label ignores the fact that Taliban were the former rulers of Afghanistan.
Yes you can argue that the Afghan Taliban were sponsors of state terrorism but it is irrelevant to the issue under discussion which is an exchange of POW.
Thanks Ritmo. I was checking my business email while I was posting here.
I can't multitask for shit.
AReasonableMan:
Please tell us which commenters made death threats on this blog.
I think that is a topic of genuine concern. Which commenters made death threats on that thread? Can you point them out?
No, Fr. Fox. I was simply referring to some reports about the cancellation of Bergdahl's homecoming parade.
Trying to figure out exactly what ARM could possibly have had in mind.
A good American should take principled stands against those, too.
Preferably every day, right here, before commenting.
Even before thinking to comment or do anything else, I try to assume that I'm amongst people who also possess the innate, pre-verbal revulsion that I do against rights violations generally when it comes to "murder, rape, robbery, extortion, and blackmail."
I am not against blackmail.
Otherwise how would they get their welfare checks.
Fr Martin Fox said...
Chip S @ 3:25 pm
If there's a contest for thread-winner, that's pretty good!
I regret to say that R&B was really right about you.
If the Crack Emcee was not dancing at TOP he would be pissed at that one.
What if you're against Blackberries?
R & B ...I agree with you that death threats against the Bergdahls are wrong and should be stamped out hard...meaning find out who and arrest them...with a nice thumping on the way to the lockup.
The Bergdahls were used as prop by the CIC for a touch-feely publicity event [stunt]....they may be schmucks, latter-day hippies, or upstanding members of the community.
I. Don't. Care.
I Don't. Like. People. Who Make. Death. Threats.
Yes you can argue that the Afghan Taliban were sponsors of state terrorism
Awfully reasonable of you to grant me that privilege.
Your shifting positions here make no sense. First you argue that the Taliban can't be terrorist by definition, bc they once ruled Afghanistan. Now you claim that they can't be terrorists bc the US went to war w. them.
It seems that, according to your way of looking at things, a "war on terrorism" is logically impossible.
Chip S.:
OK, thanks and sorry. I see now that you raised that issue, not ARM, and I see why.
Fr Martin Fox said...
AReasonableMan:
Please tell us which commenters made death threats on this blog.
Point to where I said this.
Even before thinking to comment or do anything else, I try to assume that I'm amongst people who also possess the innate, pre-verbal revulsion that I do against rights violations generally when it comes to "murder, rape, robbery, extortion, and blackmail."
I hang out w. a higher class of people than you, apparently, bc I make this assumption about their revulsion toward death threats, too.
I said...
Chip S @ 3:25 pm
If there's a contest for thread-winner, that's pretty good!
ARM said:
"I regret to say that R&B was really right about you."
Gee whiz, now you've lost a sense of humor? Chip's comment was funny. And it was a fair criticism of your comments.
Look, if this whole discussion is that unpleasant for you, maybe you need another hobby? It's no fun trying to have a conversation, even about controversial topics, when people can't keep it level.
You, neighbor, tossed in the word "slander." I've been dogging you for awhile about that, which is fair and reasonable.
And, you, neighbor, have been asked umpty-ump times to substantiate it, and you decline.
And now you're moping because I poked fun at you? Seriously?
I asked AReasonableMan:
"Please tell us which commenters made death threats on this blog."
He replied:
"Point to where I said this."
I was wrong about that, sorry. Thanks for the prompt reply, however.
How about substantiating the "slander" business? Still waiting.
Or just admit that you were over the top in hurling that term.
Chip S. said...
Your shifting positions here make no sense. First you argue that the Taliban can't be terrorist by definition, bc they once ruled Afghanistan. Now you claim that they can't be terrorists bc the US went to war w. them.
I am reacting to the claim that Obama negotiated with terrorists. This desire to invalidate the Afghan Taliban is a large part of the problem. US policy makers routinely fail to understand that these people reflect the views of a large slice of the population. Treating them as just terrorists is a recipe for failure. They are combatants in a civil war that we foolishly decided to participate join, first on one side and then on the other.
Much the same in Iraq. Simply writing off one side of a conflict as terrorists is bad strategy.
Fr Martin Fox said...
Or just admit that you were over the top in hurling that term.
No. I think your participation in the thread in question was disgraceful for a clergyman. You cravenly sought validation by participating in and supporting what was a ridiculously unhinged character assassination. You libeled the Bergdahls by failing to assert any counter view to the prevailing attacks. I guess you could argue that you were just a passive observer but then this would also be true for most participants at most lynchings.
I get it now.
You like your hero Obama are a friend to the terrorists. I must congratulate you about being so straight forward about it ARM. Thank you for bringing clarity and transparency to the discussion.
Good man.
I wish Obama would be as honest about what he believes.
Simply writing off one side of a conflict as terrorists is bad strategy.
I agree w. this.
It makes sense to argue that we shouldn't agree to demands made by hostage-takers, bc that rewards taking hostages. POWs are different, bc they weren't kidnapped but rather taken prisoner rather than KIA. It's very sensible to swap POWs for POWs.
After a war ends it makes perfect sense to just release all POWs. But in negotiations during a war the specific terms of exchange may matter a lot. That's presumably the reason Congress (BOTH houses) passed the law requiring advance notification--the blatant disregard for which is part of the reason for the intensity of this argument.
AReasonableMan:
"ridiculously unhinged character assasination"...
Uttered without any evident sense of irony.
I admit, I do admire that!
This is a fascinating new definition of "libel":
By not speaking.
You libeled the Bergdahls by failing to assert any counter view to the prevailing attacks.
Silence is libelous?
You'll make a splendid commissar w. this attitude.
As his irrational comments mount, ARM comes closer and closer to libeling all truly reasonable men.
On my way out, but I can't leave w/o adding comment # 383, thereby tying this thread w. the shutdown one it was started as a comment on.
/meta
Personally, Father, I think you are just digging a deeper hole for yourself on this one. Essentially validating the criticisms of R&B that its all just politics and power for you guys. You failed to acknowledge the humanity of the Bergdahls and what they have been through when they were under attack. And, in this failure, you harm both yourself and the Church.
Bowe Bergdahl might be a bit of a flake but he seems to have been well liked by his neighbors and should have received a minimum level of not guilty until proven otherwise.
Chip S. said...
As his irrational comments mount, ARM comes closer and closer to libeling all truly reasonable men.
There is no way that the partisan crack-up that produced the outpouring of hate towards the Bergdahls can be described as the product of truly reasonable men.
ARM:
"Digging a deeper hole."
1. ARM alleges "slander."
2. Asked -- many, many times to substantiate. Cites either from wrong thread (this one), or a comment criticizing him. No other citation.
3. Doubles down by alleging "libel" -- defined as silence.
Fr Martin Fox said...
I assume you mean him (Bergdahl) -- was a POW in the true sense?
Isn't there a huge question of whether he deserted, and perhaps defected? I don't know, but the allegation has been aired pretty openly. Doesn't your claim that he's a POW hinge on answering those other questions?
If you don't think this is a slanderous response I can't really help you. Bergdahl volunteered and went to war for our country. Your response - you know, maybe he's a defector, based on ... nothing.
ARM:
Still flailing. BEFORE I posted that comment, you alleged "slander" -- in another thread.
STILL you haven't cited anything.
This is embarrassing.
Why don't you just throw in the towel? Everyone makes mistakes.
ARM:
And no, it's not slander to ask a question about stories that have been published.
Do you deny that articles have been published about this?
Seriously?
How unhinged are you?
No it is based on the direct testimony of his platoon mates not some shit made up by Obama and his press outfit.
He walked away from his post. This was know about a long time ago. That is why they did not notify congress. They knew that even the most rabid libs would have a problem giving up a bunch of terrorists for a deserter.
No Trooper, those stories do not exist.
Because AReasonableMan says so.
Anyone who claims otherwise is guilty of "slander."
And is "unhinged."
Who you gonna believe? ARM or your lyin' eyes?
He is just caught up rooting for his team. He can not conceive that Obama could do something so wrong.
It is the same way I felt when Roger Clemens hit Mike Piazza in the noggin.
Trooper:
The stories of defection/desertion do not -- and cannot -- exist, because...
ARM declares that references to this question are "based on nothing."
Creating your own reality, and damning people who don't accept it in place of the real reality...
Could be "unhinged"?
Chip S. said...
I think it's been trying to deal w/ pederasty, not homosexuality.
There's a big difference, you know.
June 8, 2014 at 1:09 PM
Oh I do know. Do know know that many "conservatives" in the Catholic Church have fought tooth and nail to scapegoat "homosexuals" as the root cause of the clergy abuse of children? It has been a big debate within the institution. Much hand-wringing. As I'm sure you can imagine.
Fr Martin Fox said...
ARM:
And no, it's not slander to ask a question about stories that have been published.
Still digging Father?
Are you arguing that your use of the passive voice somehow makes your statementa non-slanderous?
Are you arguing that the press doesn't print slanderous stories about people?
Are you arguing that you participated in a thread where Bergdahl was repeatedly slandered without once making an attempt to present any balancing information and then slandered him again in this thread?
You wash your hands by claiming that you didn't slander Bergdahl, you were just a concerned citizen? This is pathetic.
Meade, from reports I read in the newspapers I have learnt that the Church is riddled with pederasts and homosexuals.
ARM:
I did not slander Bergdahl.
Mentioning that he has been accused of desertion or defection is not slander.
And you continue to fail to cite ANYTHING from the thread in question, to support your claim that I "slander"ed anyone.
Because, neighbor, what you cite happened later in time. Do you claim to time-travel? Please substantiate that claim. That should be fun.
Do you know what a common word for making damaging assertions without support is?
Could it be..."slander"?
It's common knowledge that he was a deserter but to assert that he was a defector is definitely an assertion without evidence - just speculation. I understand why it would make for interesting speculation, maybe even dramatic speculation, but unplausible and silly speculation nonetheless.
"You libeled the Bergdahls by failing to assert any counter view to the prevailing attacks."
Very nice. Was this in Miller's Crossing?
"Up is down, black is white, you libel with silence, ya bumb Bernie Burnbaum..."
*bump.
"Do you know what a common word for making damaging assertions without support is?
Could it be...'slander'?"
Better lawyer up, ARM. In Fr Martin Fox's mental universe, a question like that indicates a threat to sue you in a court of law.
ARM did you write crap online while the Chicagoans, your fellow Americans, were slaughtered like 19th century buffalo?
It was last weekend, the weekend before that, et. al.
If so, you sir a member of a lynch mob.
Perhaps the lynch mob, but a lynch mob no doubt.
I just read in the newspaper that the Catholic Church tossed 800 Irish orphans into septic tank grave.
Time to go.
I've given ARM all day.
To review:
1. He claims that I -- in a thread several days ago -- offered "slander."
2. I ask many times for citation.
3. He cites a comment I made in this thread -- chronologically -- after #1.
4. Then he cites a comment I made about him, protecting Obama.
5. Asked to point to "slander" of Bergdahl, he again points to this thread. Meaning he claims he foresaw a comment before it would happen.
6. ARM accuses me of libel -- by not saying something.
7. Requests for substantiation of "slander" continue.
8. ARM calls me "unhinged." No touch of irony.
How many rapes happened at university's across America last night ARM?
Why do you sit by in silence?
Why do you condemn the small amount of corruption in the Catholic church while remaining silent on the epidemic of rape and sexual torture committed DAILY on college campus'?
It is because you support the rape is my contention, with your silence.
I condemn corruption and rape everywhere, church included of course.
Meade, from reports I read in the newspapers I have learnt that the Church is riddled with pederasts and homosexuals
It is.
Slander's a great word. A better word, though, would be "talebearer". That's an English translation from (perhaps a certain version of) an old book. It describes actions more broadly, actions that certain superiors here might take to heart.
In the tradition of the people indigenous to the sacred literature that Mr Fox is so impressed by, this goes by the name lashon ha-ra, literally "evil tongue". And I think it's a good thing to be that vigilant against it. When you're part of a small and strong community that relies on things other than hierarchy, proclamations, shame and bureaucracy to reinforce its solidarity, more organic things, it's good to precaution against just stirring up shit because your appetite for intrigue overwhelms your concern for others.
But Fox, you see, he's much less interested in that sort of thing. It's harder that way to shame and condemn others to hell for violating an erroneous understanding of life reinforced by the bureaucracy seeking to control you when you value honesty, goodwill, and the integrity of people's feelings and the truths of what they've experienced that you don't yet know about.
Maybe you could start throwing some homosexual slurs at priests Meade, did you get your gin in you yet?
Since Lem isn't responding to repeated questioning, I'm going to assume he is covering for you, and take appropriate actions.
I read in the newspaper that rapes occur at Catholic universities.
I heard from several sources that Harry Reid is a pederast.
Definitely not a Catholic.
More children are molested at public schools by far, perhaps they should all be defunded, you know, for the children.
"Meade, from reports I read in the newspapers I have learnt that the Church is riddled with pederasts and homosexuals"
It is unjust to equate the Church with the Democrat party. Or most neighborhoods in Madison.
Although perhaps I'm confused. Was that statement one of condemnation or approval?
Post a Comment