Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Richard Dawkins to citizen arrest the Pope

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
If a prosecutor is saying he's got enough to justify an arrest for the Pope, that doesn't mean he's got enough to arrest the Prime Minister. Laws are often written to permit what are otherwise crimes in the prosecution of war (can't very well have a war without blowing stuff up, can you?). It's entirely possible that there is no law under which to prosecute the Prime Minister.

And Dawkins doesn't like the Pope, so he's jumping on board.

...the point of the story to me is the reaction to the suggestion that a Pope could be arrested.

Agendas:
Robertson: point to make re: no-one above the law; look at me I'm a big time QC

Dawkins: god should not bring special treatment; look at me I'm a big time atheist

Pope: god DAMN my hat is awesome!

Religious nuts: **** the atheists!

Atheist supermen: **** the god-botherers!

Completely impartial SmellyTerror: I'm ever-so-smart, don'tchya know!

Forum trolls: Oh sure the Pope feeds kiddies to pedos, but what about the WEIMAR REBUBLIC, EH? And... and... those militant atheists militantly letting us know what they think in TEXT on FORUMS. People who write on forums should be KILLED.

Catholics: I love the Pope! But I hate pedos. But I love the Pope! But I hate pedos. But I love the Pope! But I hate pedos. But I love the Pope! But I hate pedos. But I licked the Pole! But I hate... oh, flashback. :cautious:
 
Hahah Smelly.

But good luck arresting the Pope. :cautious::cautious:
 
wayneL said:
Yep it's a despicable crime alright (spit on ground in disgust. :mad:), but as far as enormity, I would have thought killing and maiming children would be right up there too.

But if Dawkins (and his supporters) admits to an agenda, then fair enough, he has an agenda.

Just so long as the debate is framed around that fact.
Click to expand...

Actually,thinking about it, I don't think its necessary to admit to any agenda to bring someone to trial for raping children (or killing and maiming) ... the agenda Robertson and Dawkins have is irrelevant, it is enough that this sort of crime be prosecuted.
 
SmellyTerror, your graph is meaningless. On the far right is anarchy with zero government, not fascism with almost total government control. Could you explain how a state of freedom can exist on a spectrum between two totalitarianisms?

You'll find the video I linked to earlier worth your time.
 
Atlas79 said:
SmellyTerror, your graph is meaningless. On the far right is anarchy with zero government, not fascism with almost total government control. Could you explain how a state of freedom can exist on a spectrum between two totalitarianisms?

You'll find the video I linked to earlier worth your time.
Click to expand...

You think anarchy... is far RIGHT.

...:confused:
:eek:
:rolleyes:

You're taking the piss now, aren't you? I'm being trolled. Christ, my word count is going towards your score at Something Awful or 4Chan, isn't it?

God, you really had me going there, but you just went too far at the end. I should have seen it right from "Hitler is a lefty atheist". Athiest is bad, but lefty too? Nah, I'm an idiot to have fallen for it. No-one sucked up cold-war anti-commie propaganda to the extent you've pretended to. "Freedom is right wing". Hahahaha! I'll have to use that one in my sig.

/sigh
I'd better go do some work. Coming onto forums and being troll-food is clearly not my talent.
 
Certainly didn't say a state of anarchy is a good thing, or a place any sane person would want to live, just that that's where it's actually positioned on the political spectrum. The traits of German national Socialism & Soviet International socialism if summed up in one phrase would be: total government control. It's coke vs pepsi, slight & token differences.

The opposite of this is what? Zero government, which is a bad idea also.

Ergo, Hitler as a national socialist was indeed on the left of the spectrum, the far left in fact. Did you know the holocaust was originally Karl Marx's idea, that Hitler borrowed it from him? Marx called it "the great socialist conflagration" in his writings.
 
Atlas79 said:
Certainly didn't say a state of anarchy is a good thing, or a place any sane person would want to live, just that that's where it's actually positioned on the political spectrum. The traits of German national Socialism & Soviet International socialism if summed up in one phrase would be: total government control. It's coke vs pepsi, slight & token differences.

The opposite of this is what? Zero government, which is a bad idea also.

Ergo, Hitler as a national socialist was indeed on the left of the spectrum, the far left in fact. Did you know the holocaust was originally Karl Marx's idea, that Hitler borrowed it from him? Marx called it "the great socialist conflagration" in his writings.
Click to expand...

What you are now entering into is full of conjecture and your take in my view without going further is pure gobbledy gook.

And continues to be way off topic

This thread is of benefit to no one and is going round in unrelated circles, recommend it be cut off at the socks.
 
It's funny, but.

Atlas: Nope. Fool me once. I'm not getting stung again. There are enough Goons laughing at me already.

I see you under that bridge! :p:
 
Another question (sorry if I'm not au fait with all the facts):

If all these guys are known to have done these things, where are the police in their respective jurisdictions?

Why wasn't Ratslinger arrested before he was pope?
 
wayneL said:
Another question (sorry if I'm not au fait with all the facts):

If all these guys are known to have done these things, where are the police in their respective jurisdictions?

Why wasn't Ratslinger arrested before he was pope?
Click to expand...

The vatican and its outbuildings are its own state, seperate from Italy, and they have thier own little police force under the direction of the Holy See, which in our Aussie language means the Pope's honcho's.
 
SmellyTerror........ You've given me a good laugh - at the expense of a few blinkered people who have been taking this thread way off the track!!

I think the point score must be:-

SmellyTerror................. 10
Atlas............................. -5 (for not answering the questions, and for gross deviation from the subject)
 
explod said:
The vatican and its outbuildings are its own state, seperate from Italy, and they have thier own little police force under the direction of the Holy See, which in our Aussie language means the Pope's honcho's.
Click to expand...

But surely these people were committing these crimes in other jurisdictions where Mr Plod could have collared them? Was Ratslinger at the Vatican the whole time this was happening?
 
wayneL said:
But surely these people were committing these crimes in other jurisdictions where Mr Plod could have collared them? Was Ratslinger at the Vatican the whole time this was happening?
Click to expand...

Maybe the political will does not exist to arrest the Pope? Hence private individuals take up the challenge.
 
Timmy said:
Maybe the political will does not exist to arrest the Pope? Hence private individuals take up the challenge.
Click to expand...

I mean before he was pope. Weren't these crimes when he was a bishop?
 
SmellyTerror said:
Atlas:


Ma, der usin' dem big werds. GET PAW'S SHOTGUN! Dey’ll be usin’ LOGIC next!!!

Criticising the word use and/or punctuation of the other party is an admission of defeat, isn't it? :p: Tragicomic was my attempt to use a word that wasn’t directly insulting, or contrary to the board’s rules. Would “retarded” have made you happier?

Ok, we’ll go with that. Your arguments were retarded. Laughable. Pathetic. So mind bogglingly stupid that I couldn’t help pointing and laughing. So far from reality, if I set fire to reality you couldn’t even see the smoke plume from where you are. So nonsensical you could mash your face into the keyboard 20 times, run it through a spell checker, then an auto-translator from English to Japanese to Finnish and back to English, and it’d still make more sense than the festering assault on the human senses you came up with. Your argument is to rational debate what an obstructed bowel is to the Snowy Mountains Scheme.

Is that better? We cool now?



So, as I said, by your rationale North Korea is democratic? Calling themselves socialists don't necessarily make it so. Weren't you the one going on and on about not taking Hitler’s word for it? What happened to your selective cynicism? Wait! I've got a relevant quote for ya:



"Socialism" wasn't a dirty word back then. To a lot of people it simply meant "provide a basic level of workers' rights". Tacking "socialist" to your party's name was a good way to indicate you were willing to consider unemployment benefits. since we're using Wikipedia today:

Despite many working-class supporters and members, the appeal of the Nazi Party to the working class was neither true nor effective, because its politics mostly appealed to the middle-class, as a stabilizing, pro-business political party, not a revolutionary workers’ party.

See also Hitler's repeated attempts to blame "socialists" among others for the loss of WWI.

It doesn't matter how insulting you try to be to argue that up is down. Yeah, there are good arguments to suggest fascism is a "third way" beyond the left-right spectrum (that’s what the Nazis said, too). There are interesting parallels how, at the extreme of left and right, the results can be quite similar. But there is no-one on this earth that I am aware of - apart from yourself - who has ever maintained that fascism was left wing.

Here's the standard interpretation, as displayed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum and pretty much any Introduction To Politics textbook you can find:

European-political-spectrum.png


...you're going to need to start promoting your novel theory, though, because there's definitely a dissertation in there.

Sorry, big word: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dissertation




It... it's a thing? What? Are you using english here?

So... so let's just back up here. Imagine I was inventing a word that meant "not faith". It's the opposite to faith, and designates a lack of faith. With me so far? For ease of use, I'm actually going to call it notfaith.

Right. So someone has faith in the universal goodness of human nature. I have notfaith in this. This person says - sure, I have faith in the goodness of human nature, but your notfaith is faith too! Your faith is in the notfaith of the universal nature of human goodness. See? Notfaith is actually faith!

NOT X IS X.

FAIL.

Do you see why that's dopey? To have a notfish, you must have a fish. To have a notferrari you must have a ferarri.

Atheism is a lack. It is an absence. The lack of a hat is not a kind of hat. The lack of a kidney is not a kind of kidney. The lack of an 10th finger is not a kind of finger. YES, you still have 9 OTHER fingers. But the lack of an 10th finger is not, in itself, a kind of finger.

We'll say that people with a missing their 10th finger (we'll assume that's a thumb) are a-thumbists.

You're saying that their a-thumbism is, in fact, a kind of finger, on the grounds that they have other fingers. That their lack of a thumb is, in fact, a thumb. If you can’t see how this is idiotic, I’m not sure there’s any arguing with you.

An atheist must have a lack of faith in god. That's what an atheist is. An atheist may well have lots of other faiths in lots of other things, but atheism denotes a lack of a faith in a very particular thing. The lack of a faith in a thing is not itself a faith. Arguing that it is, is just flat out ignorant.

You've consistently ignored my question: do you think babies are born with a faith? Because they are atheists. (One of the links YOU POSTED explains that, if you won't take my word for it). Suggesting that babies (or anything incapable of understanding the concept of god, including dogs, beluga whales and inanimate objects) subscribe to a faith is pure, gold plated crazy. But you must necessarily be proposing just that to insist that atheism is a faith.

You think you know what this word means. You are wrong. Your posting links that directly contradict what you think you know IN THE EXPECTATION THAT THEY’LL PROVE YOU RIGHT just shows how completely divorced from reality your belief in this matter is.

Step back. Forget what you think you know. Relearn, because it’s not possible to be more wrong than you are now.



Yeah, with you there...
Click to expand...

Look, your logic has too many holes in it.

I've already made - and proved - my point. Go forth and use birth control.
 
Fishbulb said:
Look, your logic has too many holes in it.
Click to expand...

And yours doesn't? That is if you can call anything you have said logical

I've already made - and proved - my point. Go forth and use birth control.
Click to expand...

What points HAVE you made? And what have you proven? Your totally illogical posts are bewildering.

This current post is a case in point.......... what has birth control got to do with priests raping children?
 
Ruby said:
And yours doesn't? That is if you can call anything you have said logical

What points HAVE you made? And what have you proven? Your totally illogical posts are bewildering.

This current post is a case in point.......... what has birth control got to do with priests raping children?
Click to expand...

2425121831_bb639583d8.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top