Epignosis corruption scandal; John Doe's criminal enterprise

steelskipper5 said:Look, if what I said is actually against the rules, then I’m assuming it’s just as illegal to call CNN, Duke Energy, or Amtrak corrupt outfits—or to label some political party a criminal organization, which is a phrase you see popping up on this site all the time. Or at least it used to be, anyway... I haven't been keeping super close tabs on things lately.

Fine. If my comment really was such a massive violation, then whatever.
But you, Epignosis, should probably realize that your own statement was straight-up hate speech and honestly deserved a 500-point penalty or even a police report.

Roger Barrett2 said:I went to great lengths to explain exactly what I said and how I said it, making sure even someone who wasn't paying attention could follow my logic. There is absolutely no basis for claiming my post was hate speech or warranted a legal report. I have no intention of repeating that entire explanation again.

Look, if I'm not allowed to equate the immoral actions of an individual with criminal activity, then you shouldn't be equating certain institutions with criminal activity either. That is my entire point.

It's quite something that you're so eager to hand out sanctions—let's just see what the moderators have to say about this whole situation.

steelskipper5 said:I am not equating an institution with criminal activity. I am arguing that a specific institution is a criminal organization—meaning, instead of actually doing what they claim to stand for, they operate for their own gain at everyone else's expense. And since there's more and more evidence showing organized cover-ups of crimes (like pedophilia, for instance), I think that claim, strictly speaking, holds water. It doesn't really matter that most of this is being proven in foreign countries, because the Catholic Church is one single, universal, and indivisible entity.
The only conclusion I'm drawing from all this is that I disagree with people who view it as some wonderful, beautiful organization, and I don't want to give them my money. Your post was all about limiting the human rights of people you happen to deem immoral.

By that logic, I guess my comment about the Pope's signature is probably offensive and punishable too.

Roger Barrett2 said:The context doesn't really matter here—and honestly, it isn't as different from what you think as you might imagine, but I don't have the time to dive into that right now. What matters is that you labeled the Catholic Church a criminal organization—essentially an IBM group of people teaming up specifically to carry out criminal activities. On top of that, you aren't distinguishing between individuals; you're just throwing everyone into one big bucket.

In my view, neither your remark about the Pope, nor my post regarding gay rights, nor your claim that the Church is a criminal organization should be considered punishable. However, given the specific criteria the moderators set and the admins backed, I fully expect you to get sanctioned.

I don't think your comment about the Pope signing off, my post regarding gay people, or your claim that the Church is a criminal org should be punishable. But, given the specific criteria the mods set up—which the admins then backed—I'm expecting you to get hit with a penalty.

steelskipper5 said:Look, if what I said is actually against the rules, then I’m assuming it’s just as illegal to call CNN, Duke Energy, or Amtrak corrupt outfits—or to label some political party a criminal organization, which is a phrase you see popping up on this site all the time. Or at least it used to be, anyway... I haven't been keeping super close tabs on things lately.

Fine. If my comment really was such a massive violation, then whatever.
But you, Epignosis, should probably realize that your own statement was straight-up hate speech and honestly deserved a 500-point penalty or even a police report.

And you, Roger Barrett2, ought to know damn well that your statement was blatant hate speech and should have earned 500 points and/or a formal report.

- I am not actually an atheist, or at least, I am by no means one, because my animosity toward religion is far stronger than my atheism; if you'll permit me to say so, it might even be hatred—not necessarily in the negative sense, though perhaps it is—and honestly, believers irritate me immensely, and I would most gladly send them all to hell, or maybe even more places than just three... err, damn, I forgot what I was saying...

-- then write me a song
for the world's greatest living atheist
for I do not bow to Christ
like those who lack a clean conscience
and carry a blacklist
of every other nation and faith they hate from the depths of their souls
while kneeling in churches until they crumble
praying to God while loving extremists
they could easily drag me down with them

Roger Barrett2 said:Who’s actually losing their mind here—is it me, or is it everyone else?

So, here we go. Our friend John Doe decides to equate the Church to a criminal organization, claiming, "I honestly think we're talking about a literal criminal enterprise working against the people" I flagged the post, yet it stays up without any penalty whatsoever.

Fast forward back two months, when I made a comparison linking homosexuality to corruption What did I get for it? A 100-point deduction and a three-day ban with the explanation: "Reason: inciting animosity by equating homosexuality with: 'Yes, gays corrupt society just like corruption, prostitution, and alcoholics do.'"

Look, corruption is a crime punishable by law, whereas being gay isn't. How am I supposed to make that distinction without hitting a wall? Now, John Doe does the exact same thing—inciting animosity by comparing the Church to a criminal element—and suddenly everyone is looking the other way.

I'm calling for consistency: either he gets the same 100-point hit and a three-day ban, or you apologize to me for the mistake made in my case. That’s the only fair way to handle this. There is no middle ground.

Brenda Cook4 said:Well, look, someone could technically sue steelskipper5 for libel (if what he said was untrue) through a private lawsuit, but he has every right to express his opinion regarding an organization (rather than individuals), especially within the context of the thread he's responding to. On the other hand, you can't engage in discrimination or demonize people based on their sexual orientation—that's illegal under U.S. law, and it violates forum rules too. So, as far as I'm concerned, no points deducted and no ban for you.

Brenda Cook4 said:Well, look, someone could technically sue steelskipper5 for libel (if what he said was untrue) through a private lawsuit, but he has every right to express his opinion regarding an organization (rather than individuals), especially within the context of the thread he's responding to. On the other hand, you can't engage in discrimination or demonize people based on their sexual orientation—that's illegal under U.S. law, and it violates forum rules too. So, as far as I'm concerned, no points deducted and no ban for you.

Rob Roy said:Of course, this raises the question of whether the Church serves the national interest—that is, does the country as a whole benefit from something like the Catholic Church? Does it benefit all citizens in some way, or just Catholics? Personally, I believe the Church is a great institution that benefits the entire nation, not just Catholics, and because of that, it is appropriate for the state to provide partial funding for its work. The only positive aspect I see regarding that tax is the provision of real, honest statistics.

steelskipper5 said:Personally, I think we are talking about a criminal organization that works against the people. For that reason alone, I refuse to fund them.

Roger Barrett2 said:Aha, I see where you're coming from. So, I'm allowed to call Step Out and Contra criminal organizations because they happen to work against the interests of the state (regardless of what that entails), but I can't say anything about gay people as individuals? Is that really the point you're trying to make?

So, if I say being gay is a sin in Godly eyes, just like XYZ2 other things (regardless of whether those things are illegal or not), that counts as discrimination. Yet, when he calls the entire Catholic Church a criminal organization (which, by definition, means a group of people organized to commit crimes), that somehow isn't discrimination? Clearly, I need to head back to school because I'm obviously an idiot.

"Demonization"? Please, let's not throw labels around so lightly. Not every disagreement constitutes demonization, and just because we view something as bad doesn't automatically mean we're demonizing it.

It isn't illegal to be gay in America, so there’s no such thing as discrimination on my part; I haven't forbidden anyone from being who they are, nor am I calling for them to be prosecuted. I simply stated that I believe it’s detrimental to society (much like XYZ2 other issues) and that I don't believe they should be granted the right to marriage or any other kind of marital union. To me, it just doesn't make sense.

Steven Clark2 said:You don't need to, because you aren't an idiot. Your mistake was simply a clumsy choice of words, which resulted in you being docked 500 points you didn't truly deserve. Even if you did earn them, someone could have been more reasonable and said, "Alright, we went a bit overboard there; just be more careful with your phrasing next time."

In truth, I would be quite interested to see whether, based on some standard in Rhode Island or similar, statements claiming the Catholic Church is a "criminal organization," or calling the cross "the greatest evil," could be considered serious offenses. There have been similar remarks made quite nonchalantly under the Religion category, where people seemingly felt they were being more popular by making the most provocative statements regarding Christianity (though that really just refers to Catholics, whereas Roger Barrett2 is, incredibly, a Protestant). I am genuinely curious if there are any legal grounds to view such comments as insults or as speech that incites intolerance and hostility.

steelskipper5, there is no point in labeling things that way, because you aren't correct. You cannot justify making those kinds of statements just because of your personal views on faith, especially not under the rather flimsy excuse of "free speech." Of course, you might even be right on the facts—but that isn't the main topic here—and that style of rhetoric only serves to discredit you. I honestly don't care how you take this, or if you get angry; I certainly don't harbor any ill will toward you, nor should you feel the need to lecture me on what does NOT belong in a conversation accepted by civilized society (furthermore, such speech can actually be actionable) or within this forum (personally, as an admin, I would delete posts like those without a second thought).

crimsonhound80 said:Ah, right, because objective rules don't actually exist on our little forum, apparently.

Look, legally speaking, you aren't allowed to call anyone corrupt; whether it's the Church, a corporation, or an individual.
I mean, sure, you *can* say it, but if you make a claim like that, it's actionable—you'd have to produce actual evidence for those assertions, otherwise, it's straight-up libel and you could easily find yourself facing a lawsuit. 😁

As for your signature? To me, that part where you suggest the Pope should be arrested... well, that's hate speech.
One could argue "that" is just a joking signature, but—given how well I know your body of work and your whole #modus operandi# regarding Religion—I know you actually mean it. 😛

And you, Roger Barrett2, ought to know damn well that your statement was blatant hate speech and should have earned 500 points and/or a formal report.

See, I don't see anything controversial in his statement whatsoever, and it certainly didn't deserve a penalty from Brenda Cook4.
What's more, she couldn't even figure out how to phrase the penalty, so she ended up writing this entire long-winded essay as an explanation. 😂

Sorry for jumping in here, but I'm a bit bored, just got back from a swim and all that. 😬

Regarding your signature—for me, the part where you suggest the Pope should be arrested qualifies as hate speech.
Sure, "that" could be seen as a joke by some, but since I'm pretty well acquainted with your whole body of work and your #activism# regarding Religion, I know you actually mean it. 😛

Brenda Cook4 said:He didn't get any 500 points at all...

Steven Clark2 said:You don't need to, because you aren't an idiot. Your mistake was simply a clumsy choice of words, which resulted in you being docked 500 points you didn't truly deserve. Even if you did earn them, someone could have been more reasonable and said, "Alright, we went a bit overboard there; just be more careful with your phrasing next time."

In truth, I would be quite interested to see whether, based on some standard in Rhode Island or similar, statements claiming the Catholic Church is a "criminal organization," or calling the cross "the greatest evil," could be considered serious offenses. There have been similar remarks made quite nonchalantly under the Religion category, where people seemingly felt they were being more popular by making the most provocative statements regarding Christianity (though that really just refers to Catholics, whereas Roger Barrett2 is, incredibly, a Protestant). I am genuinely curious if there are any legal grounds to view such comments as insults or as speech that incites intolerance and hostility.

steelskipper5, there is no point in labeling things that way, because you aren't correct. You cannot justify making those kinds of statements just because of your personal views on faith, especially not under the rather flimsy excuse of "free speech." Of course, you might even be right on the facts—but that isn't the main topic here—and that style of rhetoric only serves to discredit you. I honestly don't care how you take this, or if you get angry; I certainly don't harbor any ill will toward you, nor should you feel the need to lecture me on what does NOT belong in a conversation accepted by civilized society (furthermore, such speech can actually be actionable) or within this forum (personally, as an admin, I would delete posts like those without a second thought).