Posts by Richard James2

briskfox65 said:Sixty minutes... mostly just playing favorites with Milorad Dodik.

Yeah, right, Sixty Minutes.

Bakir and Milorad Dodik have always had this intense, aggressive love-hate relationship—that much is obvious: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQl_Rp4jzx4 😁

And what about her appearance on that local news station Monday night alongside Bakir Hadžiomerović? Honestly, she’s spent years systematically driving people absolutely insane. 😁

Clearly, you didn't bother reading my entire post. If you had, you would've realized I was touching upon that whole Femen brand of moronism, even if I didn't spell it out explicitly.

And look, yeah, some LGBT activists love to weaponize obnoxious rhetoric in public discourse, but that doesn't mean everyone does—nor does it mean the activist crowd is some perfect mirror reflecting the entire gay population.

So, I ended up circling back to the subject of my appealing post.

It’s easy for this debate to spiral into petty bickering, but hey, that’s just how these topics go. Given the way everyone is throwing around credentials from all sides and the fact that we’re all hanging out on the internet, I’m just going to drop one thought here. Please, don't quote me; I have zero intention of engaging in a back-and-forth, but I feel almost obligated to say this. Last week in Rome, a 15-year-old boy took his own life—most likely because he was gay. What pushed him over the edge? Cyberbullying. After enough people on Facebook piled on with insults about his manicured nails or his pink pants, he reached his breaking point. Since we're operating in digital spaces, we shouldn't forget that words actually have consequences and they hurt. If you can't dismantle an opponent's argument with actual logic, it’s better not to sink into shallow, crude ad hominem attacks. This isn't just happening anywhere; it’s a trend among *everyone*, and if you ask anyone, they'll tell you that playing the mudslinging game is the favorite pastime of those who claim to be "enlightened." Don't think for a second that I'm pointing my finger at any specific group, oh no.

Look, don't stoop that low. In the heat of a process, you might end up dragging down someone who doesn't deserve the smear.

Lisa Green7 said:Look, if someone refuses to marry a gay couple (under the guise of "convictions") or a race-mixed couple (again, "convictions"), then they simply aren't capable of doing their job. In that case, an employee should leave those personal beliefs—or whatever else they carry—at the front door when they clock in.

As for sex education, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, the minister for women's rights, is currently rolling out new plans regarding this.


The French government is planning to introduce lessons on gay issues in primary School in a new move aimed at raising awareness and tackling homophobia.

The goal here is to teach kids about homosexual relationships and same-sex parenting.

Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, the minister for women's rights, noted that these proposals are designed to help combat homophobia in France.

The Hopa is that by Making Young children aware of The issues, playground bullying and teen suicide rates will drop, according to Vallaud-Belkacem.

"in Europe WE will work towards having a Common stanac , while in Franc WE will strengthen Our Protection for asylum seekers whose lives ara in danger because of their sexual orientation," she stated.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/40...homophobia.htm

Right. So, should a doctor who refuses to perform euthanasia also just run their practice from home? Or are they simply incompetent? It’s funny how when it comes to sensitive ethical dilemmas, you don't start from the premise that people should have the right to conscientious objection; instead, you basically want to exile them from society right out of the gate. And honestly, trying to stretch a subtle analogy to include interracial marriages is such a massive reach it would make a pig fetus recoil—don't even go there.

Regarding sex education, the women's rights minister, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, is currently pushing for it.

Sex ed is one thing, but then there's the matter of teaching the vulnerable to respect diversity—the idea that people are obligated to tolerate Muslims, Chinese people, Americans, leftists, or redheads, just as they are expected to tolerate homosexuals as a minority group. Now, I don't think any sane person would question that. People who threaten the physical safety of gay individuals or engage in harassment and intimidation are bad people, plain and simple; the consequences of those actions need to be clearly stated and explained.

But none of this is why a huge chunk of the public in France is pissed off. The real issue is state-mandated "the only correct upbringing," where the government stops being neutral and starts acting like the supreme, ultimate educator—even over the parents, if that's how you interpret Minister Peillon's stance. Of course people are going to push back against these unrealistic utopian experiments being performed on their kids, and against the blatant undermining of parental authority. And they aren't the only ones feeling it.

This isn't actually about the gay marriage issue; that was just the spark. Honestly, Hollande would be wise not to push too hard on this. Hollande made a promise, and he'd be a complete jerk and a coward if he went back on it; he probably genuinely supports gay marriage from a worldview perspective; and let's be real, his support from minority communities is something he desperately needs. He shouldn't be gambling with it, especially since support for him and his administration is constantly slipping without any real progress to show for it.

Lisa Green7 said:Not in the Netherlands either—actually, if marriage equality is legalized—or rather, if we aren't talking about "gay marriage" but simply expanding the definition of marriage to include any two people—why should anyone be allowed to refuse to perform it? If their morals get in the way, they can just find another job where it isn't an issue.

The "parent 1, parent 2" model has already been in place in Spain for seven years, and I don't see it having had any significant impact on anything it was supposed to affect... because logically, if they have same-sex parents, they won't be acting as "mother" and "father," but simply as parents. And that "parent 1, 2" setup exists in the UK too... where, on the birth certificates of female partners who had children via IVF, the sperm donor isn't listed as a "parent."

Because there are people in society whose conscience, value systems, or worldview simply aren't swayed by signing off on a law. Besides, it doesn't strike me that most people choosing a career path are primarily motivated by their stance on gay marriage; for many, the law was just already there when they entered the workforce. So, what are we supposed to do with them?

The whole "parent 1, parent 2" thing has been around in Spain for seven years now, and I don't see it having any massive impact on anything it supposedly should have. It’s logical: if they have same-sex parents, those people aren't going to pretend to be a mother and a father—they're just parents. And this "parent 1, 2" setup exists in the UK too... where, for instance, on the birth certificates of partners who had kids via IVF, the sperm donor isn't listed as a "parent."

Actually, there were real implications in Spain—the state was hit with thousands of lawsuits because people refused to let the government dictate its universal morality in schools. You know, if things had been even slightly tighter, Zapatero could have actually lost his election over this. There is a massive difference between acknowledging that different kinds of people exist in society and the state trying to enforce a specific moral or ethical curriculum in education—something people won't necessarily take kindly to. Invoking legalism doesn't change that reality. Simply saying "but the law was passed" or "but an online poll showed..." doesn't mean you can just come in and instantly hack away at everything ever established on a certain topic.

I don't know the political landscape in France all that well, but I am absolutely certain that this much of an uproar wouldn't even remotely surface if they hadn't first engaged in some blatant "Parent A and Parent B" brainwashing to warp people's perception of reality. Now, looking at the most recent data, support for adoption has dropped by about 6% since the start of the François Hollande era (with those supporting marriage equality sitting at roughly 15%), while about 66% of French citizens are calling for a referendum. They haven't earned that kind of pushback; pretending this is some sudden, shocking surprise is just plain delusional.

It’s also pretty fascinating to see how people outside of religious circles are reacting to this. You've got an entire wave of psychologists, philosophers, lawyers, and intellectuals joining the fray, along with about 12,000 mayors and registrars demanding the right to conscientious objection when asked to perform these marriages—a right you don't even have in Canada, for instance. Even some homosexuals have weighed in, specifically those organized under the plus gay sans mariage association, which the broader LGBT community is now accusing of being homophobic. 😁

Now, look. The fact that something becomes legal because of a policy decision made by democratically elected bodies is something that deserves respect. Personally, the idea of John and Jack signing a piece of paper doesn't mean much to me in the grand scheme of things. However, I view adoption as an issue that will remain subject to debate until the end of time. Let's be real: the state isn't necessarily driven by noble or altruistic motives when it comes to altering social structures. We aren't naive enough to pretend laws are born from deep philosophical contemplation; they are products of political maneuvering and financial interests. That is why I believe it is vital to leave room for public discourse and, as much as possible, the input of independent experts. We need to avoid reaching that Canadian level of intolerance where people are effectively gagged under the threat of legal sanctions. Honestly, that kind of suppression worries me far more than the mere legalization of any specific practice, and it looks like we are heading straight for it.

Btw, this could probably be merged with the current topic.

Let me dig a little deeper into this. Take a look at Article 6 of the Security Council resolution:

Decides that nationals, current or former officials or personnel from a State outside the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya which is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that State for all alleged acts or omissions arising out of or related to operations in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya established or authorized by the Council, unless such exclusive jurisdiction has been expressly waived by the State.

The Obama administration dug its heels in—unconditionally, mind you—insisting that mercenary war criminals be shielded from outside prosecution. Why? Because they didn't want to put anyone in the line of fire. They were terrified that if they didn't protect themselves, officials from both the Bush and Obama administrations could end up facing war crimes charges at the international court on the exact same legal grounds used against Libyan mercenaries.

[T]he US insisted that the UN resolution was worded so that no one from an outside country that is not a member of the ICC could be prosecuted for their actions in Libya.

...

The whole thing was viewed as a calculated move to avoid setting a precedent where Americans might actually face prosecution by the ICC for alleged crimes in other conflicts...

Even some UN observers were stunned by this paragraph, though frankly, I don't see what's so shocking about it. It’s just classic Washington: using every ounce of diplomatic muscle available to dodge the very standards they demand everyone else live by, all while playing shield for their own potential war criminals. And let's be real, when I say "potential," I mean it.

raptiger7 said:Sergey Lavrov calls for ICC prosecution over Libya war crimes
Russia is demanding that any "war crimes" committed in Libya be handed over to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Will the Americans and the Britons actually go along with this?
Are they really going to put their own politicians and officers on trial for what happened in Libya?

Oh, sure they will—except they won't. Has anyone actually bothered to read Article 124 of the Rome Statute of the ICC? 🙂

To me, this doesn't even feel like a serious diplomatic move. It feels more like a middle finger to their opponents. I mean, sure, it’s probably not coming from the most righteous sources, but hey, a little trolling never hurt anyone.

Does anyone actually need an ideology just to be motivated to excel?

In political maneuvering, dominance comes down to raw interest and having a backbone. You can't really force that kind of thing on people. Just my two cents.

rowdyowl said:Seriously, would the military actually open fire just because they were ordered to?
There’s a massive difference between fighting in a distant war zone like Iraq and being told to turn guns on people in your own hometown. Even in places like Romania, the troops didn't just start shooting at their own citizens; it was only the most radical snipers, and those guys were cleared off the rooftops pretty fast.

I really hope the bankers stay out of this. Seeing what happened in Italy was infuriating enough, so I can only imagine how much worse things get for the Italians when they get involved.

Well, what do you think? 🤷

I really hope the bankers don't swoop in on this. Seeing how things went down in Italy left me pretty pissed off, so I can only imagine what it's going to be like for the Italians.

Look, bankers don't give a damn about anyone else, and frankly, very few governments are actually going to sit back and let violent protests tear up their streets.

And I’m telling you again: Genoa is going to remain a powder keg for a long, long time.

Even Ebert would agree.

The review is just way too loaded with pathetic sarcasm and these moralizing lectures about what Jolie, as an American woman, should be starring in. It’s all wrapped up in these weirdly biased political agendas just so he can pretend to give a balanced take from some supposed "expert" perspective. He isn't actually disappointed by a bad movie; he's just personally offended on a national level. Honestly, it’s a bit bizarre to see him being this vitriolic over something that is supposedly sooooon much of a disaster. It feels like he's trying entirely too hard to prove a point that should have been obvious from the start.

William Robinson91 said:http://cultofghoul.blogspot.com/2012...oney-2011.html

Even if you consider the movie itself a political manifesto, reviews like this aren't much different from the film.

🙂

Look, fear tends to magnify everything. It’s not like people are blind to what’s going down in Greece or how much Spain is struggling right now.

And don't go making jokes about Genoa; there's a very real reason people freak out when large-scale political protests hit that city. Anyone with half a brain who remembers the G8 summit in Genoa back in 2001 knows the score—dozens were injured, and a 23-year-old protester was killed by a police officer's shot. You have highly organized groups just waiting for payday, and they don't take excessive police force lightly. That includes the anarchist Black Bloc crowds that pulled all sorts of stunts during the Italian version of Occupy Wall Street, ranging from random vandalism to full-on arson.

As for Monti, he isn't exactly a most-hated figure (yet), his popularity is just cratering. When he first stepped up, everyone knew exactly who he was: a Goldman Sachs man through and through. Everyone knew he was the darling of the EU oligarchy, yet somehow, there was this weird consensus to welcome him as a savior—from the right wing to the left wing, even the Italian public. That consensus? Yeah, it’s pretty much dead and gone now.

nimblebadger19 said:Nataša Kandić—she’s actually pretty heartbroken over all this, and from what I gather, she even ended up facing some legal trouble because of it..

So it turns out she was sued just for what she said, not because there was any actual proof of slander.

click

nimblebadger19 said:Look, Nikolić didn't volunteer anywhere. Honestly, he’s way too much of a coward to ever put himself on the line like that.😂

So you think a guy like that is "unthinkable" in your neck of the woods? What about Sanders? 🤷 The only difference is that Toma got caught red-handed while he was still in the opposition—I mean, you really have to be a special kind of genius to blow your cover before you even get into power.

At the end of the day, Nikolić is just your classic social demagogue, not some hardcore nationalist. Like, what part of his campaign is even nationalist?

So, you're telling me Joe Biden wasn't out there doing his part in Antin during the war?

Who's spreading this kind of slander?

bluemarlin19 said:You've certainly shown off what you know.

Unless you can back up your claim with a direct quote from some official document proving that the clergy was actually required to report cases of pedophilia to secular authorities back in 1960, then stop spamming this thread with lies.

I think I have; I wouldn't bet my life on you, unless "knowledge" now means freestyle interpretations of legal documents.

Prove your claim with a quote from any actual document showing that the clergy was required to report cases of pedophilia to secular authorities back in 1960, or stop spamming this thread with lies.

Now this is just plain rude, and as such, we're done here.

This thread isn't going to be hijacked by pamphleteers under any circumstances—better to just stick to your favorite tradition of rotting at the bottom of some obscure PDF, right? :maše:

bluemarlin19 said:Whatever, you're just intentionally spreading lies and spamming the thread.

Oh, please. It’s actually incredibly important.

There's really no need for the passive aggression here; my question wasn't even remotely condescending.

Ugh, don't even get me started.

Anyway, can I ask you something—purely out of curiosity, mind you? How much do you actually know about the law? Like, your grasp on legal norms, statutes, and general legislation? No need to give me your life story, just a ballpark idea.

bluemarlin19 said:What does USCCB even stand for? Yeah, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Basically, after the Boston Globe published that massive series of articles back in January 2002 about priests abusing kids and the cover-ups involved (which, by the way, won a Pulitzer Prize), the USCCB was forced by public pressure to change their own ways of doing things—not the entire Catholic Church globally.

So, once again—you didn't answer my question.

Back in 2011, Levada, following Ratzinger's lead, gave instructions to local bishops to come up with regulations for handling sexual abuse cases by May 2012, which were supposed to include mandatory cooperation with local authorities.

Again, that isn't a law for the whole Catholic Church, nor is it even fully in effect. It’s just an instruction to create local regulations in the near future.

So—you still haven't answered a simple question.

Let me repeat your claim:

The only thing Crimen Sollicitationis explicitly mandates is the obligation of absolute secrecy under threat of excommunication.

After I pointed out that you're straight-up lying instead of just admitting you misunderstood or misread something, you just keep going:

Canon 2368 has absolutely nothing to do with reporting anything to anyone... so basically, it's just lie after lie.

Neither CS (Crimen Sollicitationiss), nor its 1922 predecessor, nor Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, nor de delictis gravioribus require the mandatory reporting of pedophilia to secular authorities.

And again, decisions made by the Church in America don't bind anyone outside their jurisdiction (if anything, Ratzinger advocated for reducing the authority of local bishops because of things like this).

As for what you wrote about how the Decalogue document "explicitly mandates cooperation with civil authorities"
— Which document are you even talking about, please?
Did it happen to our "devout" friend Richard James2 that she literally translated an apologetic pamphlet without realizing she was just looking at the Ten Commandments?

In short—you're lying, manipulating, and trying to dilute the topic with cheap Catholic apologetics..

And here is something for those who aren't clear on the obligation to report those accused of criminal acts to secular authorities.

Yeah, and?

Look, after the Boston Globe dropped that massive investigative series back in January 2002 exposing the whole mess of priestly abuse and the systemic cover-ups—which, let's be honest, was a total bombshell—everything changed. It wasn't just some minor scandal; it was a complete breakdown of trust that shook the foundations of everything we thought we knew about how things were handled. A Pulitzer Prize winner. The USCCB was essentially backed into a corner by public outcry, leaving them with absolutely no choice but to implement those changes. svom It’s working, but we aren't talking about the parish level here—we're talking about the broader scope of the Diocese.

What exactly does this contradict? The idea that extensive church guidelines have been issued mandating full cooperation with civil authorities? I highly doubt it.

Look, you didn't actually answer my question.

Look, I am telling you—yes, I am, and this is the third time I’ve said it—but honestly, your response isn't exactly helping your case.

Back in 2011, according to the Levada poll data, Ratzinger's successor issued a direct mandate to local bishops: they had until May 2012 to roll out formal protocols for handling sexual abuse cases. These guidelines were supposed to explicitly include a requirement to cooperate with local law enforcement.

Once again, we’re looking at something that isn't even a universal law for the entire Catholic Church, let alone something that's actually being enforced. It simply isn't. The directive basically says we’re looking at implementing local-level regulations sometime down the road. It's one of those "wait and see" moves where they promise to hammer out specific guidelines for individual jurisdictions in the near future, but for now, it's just more talk about future bureaucracy..

Look, the Pope has already issued the directive to the bishops to report abuse cases. He didn't say anything about sitting around waiting for all the paperwork and technicalities to be finalized, so the call to action stands right now.

By the way, just because something is considered "in force throughout the entire Church" doesn't mean it’s automatically excessive or problematic on its own—not unless it runs headfirst into local legal norms.

Look, you didn't actually answer the simple question I asked.

Look, I am—I really am. It’s just that you’re the one deciding which minor drama deserves a spotlight and which thing needs you screaming about at full volume. Lies, pure lies. These Catholic pamphlets are nothing but garbage—down with all of this!

Canon 2368 has absolutely nothing to do with reporting anything to anyone... so we're just looking at a pile of lies on top of more lies.

Qualifications alone aren't going to buy you any credibility.

Look, I honestly think your excessive hysteria stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how legal documentation is actually interpreted. I can’t exactly meet you halfway here unless I just parrot back the same old line: the issued document is in direct correlation with several other Canons. You simply cannot implement one without the other correctly. This specific document states that... the accused must be suspended from celebrating Mass and hearing sacramental confessions, stripped of all their official benefits, and, in the most severe cases, reported to the secular authorities.

It shouldn't even be necessary for me to spell out that the crime of solicitation specifically applied and to cases of sexual abuse, among other things. Every diocese was required to have these protocols in place and, when a charge came in, act accordingly. I am not going to repeat myself again.

neither CS(Crimen Sollicitationis), nor its 1922 predecessor, nor Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, nor de delictis gravioribus mandate reporting a pedophile to civil authorities.

Those two later documents are improved norms established according to the aforementioned Canons—which apparently mean nothing to you, 'cause then you don't have a case 🙂 — such as de delictis gravioribus, which, even if it doesn't explicitly mention abuse in one specific paragraph, emphasizes extending the statute of limitations (when dealing with crimes against minors).

By the way, thanks to the implementation of Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, six priests in the Irish diocese of Ferns were handed over to civil authorities—two of whom are currently serving prison time. That’s surely because bluemarlin19 explained to them exactly how to interpret the given norms.

Likewise, again, the decisions of the Church in America don't bind anyone outside of their jurisdiction (if anything, Ratzinger advocated for reducing the authority of local Bishops' Conferences because of things like this).

Yeah, and? How does that address the falsehood that "to this day, the Church binds no one to cooperate with secular authorities"?

Which document, if you please???

That was an oversight on my part—anyway, I know what the Decalogue document is; it's a separate section of Sacramentorum, there was no need to pull it out separately since it deals with the anathema of pedophilia anyway.

great believer

Aaaa, just tell me where it hurts. 🙂

In short—you're lying, manipulating, and trying to dilute the topic with cheap Catholic apologetics.

I could retaliate with heavy artillery and write that you are legally illiterate, a self-righteous, foaming-at-the-mouth, insolent interlocutor who is doing all of the above (and is), while adding a dash of personal animosity, but I won't. Although, oops, I guess I just did.

Nice try, though.