Holy Crap..I'm having JCM flashbacks.
- Status
I
Iaculus
A rather... prolific poster known for two things:
1. Looking like Brazilian Jesus.
2. Indulging in lengthy arguments involving massive posts with lots and lots of quotes that had a habit of degenerating into incoherent ranting/misquoting/attacking of strawmen. They gave the threads he participated in a very unique appearance, needless to say.
A Brazilian man who argued relentlessly. Doesn't frequent this site as he used to, he recently became a father so I assume that's taking up most of his free time.
JCM?! I haven't even accused him of resorting to ad hominems because he has no case yet... you guy must miss him too much to start so early...
AHEM: "(and after the emergence of Protestantism, the catholic part of the world)"
As for being obtuse... google Great Schism 1054... it's really annoying when people seem not to know about it...
AHEM: "(and after the emergence of Protestantism, the catholic part of the world)"
As for being obtuse... google Great Schism 1054... it's really annoying when people seem not to know about it...
And now that my pet peeve has been appeased, i'll try to be more civil!
Lets start with the fact that quantifying the effect of the french debt requires more resources then we have, but you do seem to be minimising it...
Having hypocritical standards when applying morals does not make the morals different.
Lets start with the fact that quantifying the effect of the french debt requires more resources then we have, but you do seem to be minimising it...
My point wasn't just that the victims complained, but about the fact that the guys doing it would have also complained if the same thing was done to them... hypocrisy in applying morals is not the same as the morals themselves.
See, you're using my embellishment for emotional impact of the argument instead of the actual argument itself... it works just as well with different classes in any society that has existed yet etc.
Having hypocritical standards when applying morals does not make the morals different.
Exactly... what changed was to who those morals applied.
When did we go from "Spain had less to do with it then the Catholic Church" to the Church not being involved? There's a reason why the Spanish Inquisition stands out you know...
Dave
Staff member
And this, in your opinion, somehow translates into "Catholic Europe came about after Luther"? I must be missing some incredible feat of logic here. So if I was to say, oh, that "as far as Haiti is concerned, after the Dominican Republic regained it's independence, haitian rule covered the haitian part of the island" (which is a damn sight better example of the matter than the out-of-context snippet you gave above), you would see it as completely reasonable to assume I was claiming that Haiti came about after 1844?
Dude, the Catholic Church did exist before Protestantism, and I have never claimed otherwise. Keep stretching if you feel you have a case.
As to the Great Schism, I'll google it if I feel I have to refresh my memory. For now, I think my elementary school teachers covered the topic of the split of christianity into the catholic and orthodox branches quite sufficiently.
I'll return the courtesy from this point on.
Quantifying the effects of any of the different factors is very difficult, true. So, if we decide to proceed along this line, we are regretfully limited mostly to educated and mostly unsubstantiated guesses. Though the end result is probably going to be to "agree to disagree".
I think I understand your point. But things are quite complex and interconnected, and pretty much whatever gets done, even if it is lily-white on the grey scale, somebody will get the short end of the stick, feel they have been wronged, and complain. No matter what you do, you can't please everybody. This applies to all people, including the french. So simply because whoever that gets shafted complains does not in itself mean that the deed is wrong.
When somebody raises my taxes, I complain. When they are out of office and their taxes get raised, they complain. It doesn't mean that raising taxes is necessarily wrong. Even if the government is using money on things that I don't believe are necessary.
My intention was more to point out some flaws in the examples given.
Am I correct in assuming that your position is that any party, be it an individual or an entire society, which treats others, including their enemies, differently then they would like to be treated themselves, is being a moral hypocrite? And that this is a universal moral rule which applies to all times and circumstances?
In my view, a modern analogue of the morals involved in the case of the Pope's complaint would be something along the lines of an innocent person being convicted in a court of law. A mistake, perhaps even an abuse has happened, and is open to valid criticism. But this does not mean in and of itself that the general process and the entire justice system, meaning the investigation, trial and sentencing of suspects is wrong. Only that single instance, or a series of instances as the case may be.
As I understand, the Pope was not criticising the investigation (torture et al), the trial (tribunals of the Inquisition) or the sentencing (execution). He was criticising the abuses (that the Spanish King used the Inquisition against whoever he wanted to get rid of). After all, heretics were guilty of a crime seen by the lawmakers as deserving of the punishment.
edit: Well, the Pope was kinda criticising the verdict, which should have been Not Guilty in his view. But he wasn't really criticising the powers of the Inquisition to pronounce people guilty of capital offenses. /edit
We didn't. The various Inquisitions were established with papal sanction, which is why I believe that if you want to assign blame for them, the Catholic Church should carry much of it. But I would contest the assertion that the Spanish Inquisition, other than the early abuses for which very much of the responsibility lies with of the Spanish Crown, really stands out that much from the crowd. As mentioned previously, with the early abuses taken out, the Spanish Inquisition executed some 2000-3000 people over a period of some 300 years. This isn't that different from what happened in other countries.
If your assertion is that the Spanish Inquisition stands out because of the early though temporary abuses, you may be correct. They were notable for excecuting many people in a relatively short period of time.
Sounds like a swell guy.
Well, I do not really have a habit of posting while drunk, and I do not troll. But I can recognise the 'arguing endlessly' part.
- Status