T
Tom317
Guest
Well, I have no clue about the OP, all I know is that the threat was made by gay activists.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
It’s the initial post of this thread - the opening post.Well, I have no clue about the OP,
You don’t know that at all, it’s likely that somebody who objects to the Church’s position on the subject sent the threat.all I know is that the threat was made by gay activists.
You can’t say it’s “gay activists” - well you can, obviously, but it would just be an unsubstantiated accusation without some evidence - or that the individual or ‘group’ are in any way representative of anything other than the individual or group. Otherwise it’s “somebody from a set ‘x’ did something therefore all of set ‘x’ are guilty”. Is the individual/group representative of the set or a subset of the set?
Are clinic bombers representative of the ‘set’ known as the pro-life movement or are they a subset of the pro-life movement not representative of the whole?
T
Tom317
Guest
One does not have to be gay in order to be a activist for gay agendas.It’s the initial post of this thread - the opening post.
You don’t know that at all, it’s likely that somebody who objects to the Church’s position on the subject sent the threat.
You can’t say it’s “gay activists” - well you can, obviously, but it would just be an unsubstantiated accusation without some evidence - or that the individual or ‘group’ are in any way representative of anything other than the individual or group. Otherwise it’s “somebody from a set ‘x’ did something therefore all of set ‘x’ are guilty”. Is the individual/group representative of the set or a subset of the set?
Are clinic bombers representative of the ‘set’ known as the pro-life movement or are they a subset of the pro-life movement not representative of the whole?
K
Kaninchen
Guest
So . . . . . ?One does not have to be gay in order to be a activist for gay agendas.
T
Tom317
Guest
So, extremists come in all shapes and forms. Some person or group of people, be them gay or not, chose to threaten the life of an Archbishop. Bad stuff.So . . . . . ?
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Glad you agree with me but, supposedly, we’re responding to the opening post of the thread which implies that it’s the responsibility of the ‘set’ known as ‘gay activists’.So, extremists come in all shapes and forms. Some person or group of people, be them gay or not, chose to threaten the life of an Archbishop. Bad stuff.
T
Tom317
Guest
The point is that the Archbishop’s life was threatened for speaking the truth of the faith. It makes no difference whether the people doing the crime were gay or not, it is a hate crime either way, right?Glad you agree with me but, supposedly, we’re responding to the opening post of the thread which implies that it’s the responsibility of the ‘set’ known as ‘gay activists’.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Threatening people does imply a level of hatred, for sure. It may be argued, of course, that in ‘speaking the truth’ (or his way of ‘speaking’) of your particular faith the Archbishop has insulted/infuriated somebody to the point where they have behaved as they have but that’s absolutely no excuse for their behavior in threatening him.The point is that the Archbishop’s life was threatened for speaking the truth of the faith. It makes no difference whether the people doing the crime were gay or not, it is a hate crime either way, right?
T
Tom317
Guest
You seem to be making that argument here, which in a way says you might hold some sympathy for thee action?Threatening people does imply a level of hatred, for sure. It may be argued, of course, that in ‘speaking the truth’ (or his way of ‘speaking’) of your particular faith the Archbishop has insulted/infuriated somebody to the point where they have behaved as they have but that’s absolutely no excuse for their behavior in threatening him.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
You’d have to substantiate that comment.You seem to be making that argument here, which in a way says you might hold some sympathy for thee action?
I merely observed that the individual may have felt provoked, I was very clear that feeling provoked was no excuse.
T
Tom317
Guest
“It may be argued…”You’d have to substantiate that comment.
I merely observed that the individual may have felt provoked, I was very clear that feeling provoked was no excuse.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Which is an observation not a proposition.“It may be argued…”
Since I’m neither gay (it’d be lesbian in my case) nor give a damn one way or another what Catholic Archbishops (or any Christian clergy for that matter - I’m Jewish) say about anything, it really is about ‘observation’.
T
Tom317
Guest
Okay, then why propose a counter argument to a horrible event? It seems to me that is a way of helping the criminal.Which is an observation not a proposition.
Since I’m neither gay (it’d be lesbian in my case) nor give a damn one way or another what Catholic Archbishops (or any Christian clergy for that matter - I’m Jewish) say about anything, it really is about ‘observation’.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I didn’t, I made an observation.Okay, then why propose a counter argument to a horrible event? It seems to me that is a way of helping the criminal.
T
Tom317
Guest
Not really, you stated that it could be argued.I didn’t, I made an observation.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
As, indeed, it might and, probably, will be. Meanwhile, which part of:Not really, you stated that it could be argued.
which appeared there, are you having difficulty with?absolutely no excuse for their behavior in threatening him
T
Tom317
Guest
I would have no problem if you just condemned the criminal sinful action, rather then proposing ways to defend the crime. It represents–imo–a duality of mind that is quite unbecoming.As, indeed, it might and, probably, will be. Meanwhile, which part of:
which appeared there, are you having difficulty with?
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I haven’t proposed any ways to defend the crime, I’ve merely observed that it’s probably the action of somebody who felt provoked but provocation is absolutely no excuse - it would be no excuse between any two people (the fact that one of them is an Archbishop is of no significance to me).I would have no problem if you just condemned the criminal sinful action, rather then proposing ways to defend the crime. It represents–imo–a duality of mind that is quite unbecoming.
Your opinion of any ‘duality of mind’ is one you are free to have and, again, of no significance to me.
T
Tom317
Guest
You posed a counter argument, which is a defense of the crime. I understand why you do not want to admit that, but the facts are the facts. It is very tough to admit it when we make mistakes.I haven’t proposed any ways to defend the crime, I’ve merely observed that it’s probably the action of somebody who felt provoked but provocation is absolutely no excuse - it would be no excuse between any two people (the fact that one of them is an Archbishop is of no significance to me).
Your opinion of any ‘duality of mind’ is one you are free to have and, again, of no significance to me.
B
bones_IV
Guest
It’s not pastoral to confirm someone in their sin.Glad you agree with me but, supposedly, we’re responding to the opening post of the thread which implies that it’s the responsibility of the ‘set’ known as ‘gay activists’.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.