I think you’ll find that Minnesota courts define improperto mean,
HOW DARE YOU use that term.
It doesn’t matter. He’s still a criminal in any non-apologist-for-monsters way. Tell us - are you just a freelance apologist for Bush, The Catholic Church et al or are you paid?
Do you devote half the time you spend here defending the RCC on actually doing something about it being the largest organised gang of child-abusers on the planet?
Oddly enough I sort of like that idea.
At this point I think the church has effectively shot itself in the foot and may actually be starting the long slow swirl down the drain. The local church official [didn’t catch his name or rank] has been doing a commercial on the radio locally asking men, not just young men but any age to consider going to seminary and becoming a priest. He phrased it ‘answering a call’. When you have to advertise for volunteers it sounds like the current crop of young are simply NOT interested. What will they do if nobody wants to become a priest [though from what I understand they get a fair number of volunteers from highly depressed regions in South and Central America. Regular eating is apparently still a draw.]
Didn’t know that the Lord had resorted to paid advertisements as the means of ‘calling’ people to follow him in specific ways. Used to be that the call was placed directly to the person’s heart.
Needless to say, this makes me feel old-fashioned, but that will hit even harder once God starts ‘calling’ people via Facebook, Twitter, and text messages.
And I’ll second this.
Can they at least take a drink of vinegar?
My reaction to this charge is the same reaction i’d have to the word ‘criminal’ being used to describe anyone who isn’t a criminal.
I get that you’re using ‘criminal’ in a more general sense. But because these acts FEEL like they could be criminal in an actual legal sense, I feel it’s of value to point out that they’re not.
This Star Trek “Data” act where you purport to simply not understand the emotions of these mysterious humans is getting very tiresome.
Jesus fuck, WHO CARES?
Let’s try this.
It’s a fucking shame that what he did is not covered under California’s criminal code because what this guy is far worse than what a lot of criminals already sitting in prison have done. This guy should be tarred and feathered, ridden out of town on a rail, then buried in the sand up to his neck so that the ants and buzzards could have him.
How’s that?
The Brickerbot needs to ensure accuracy of vocabulary, otherwise his neural network will fuse together.
The guy’s a monster, if half of what has been said is true. It’s perfectly acceptable to be outraged and proclaim that he is a criminal and deserves to be in jail. Do I know if there is a specific statute that he could be tried and convicted on? No. Do I give a flying fuck? No.
Hey, let’s have a little Christian charity here! After all, the Counselor is our acknowledged expert on excruciatingly precise semantics. And he hasn’t won one in a long, long time.
I’ll lead: I hereby promise that I will refrain from referring to Cardinal Baloney as a “criminal” until such time as he is adjudicated as such in a court of law. Or burns in Hell, whichever comes first.
Don’t worry BobLibDem. Cardinal Mahoney is praying for you to be forgiven for your bad attitude towards him. So that should make you feel better.
Hell, I will tell **Bricker **there’s an applicable statute, and for purposes of this discussion, that makes it so.
After all, he felt quite comfortable in repeatedly (and completely wrongly) telling me what was and wasn’t included in the definition of a statistical outlier, in a recent thread. If he can make shit up in my field, I can make shit up in his.
Hey, wait a second! Is he going to the same Hell I’m going to? No fair! I’m just up on a Bad Puns rap, guilty as charged, sure, but do I have to bunk with this slimeball? I figured it would be OK, I could get used to it, no Baptists for starters…
I’m sure Rhadamanthus will see that you’re placed in different bolgias in Hell.
Bad puns ought to be somwhere near the bottom, on the Lake of Ice. Punsters probably are frozen in place with their ears exposed to hear the puns of others, but their mouths frozen in place, spending an eternity unable to respond in kind.
Well, that’s very reassuring. You got some sort of certificate, or something? At least a funny hat? Anyway, if I get sent down for bad puns and Vinny isn’t there, I’m gonna sue! If i can find a lawyer. Shouldn’t be too much of a problem.
Always good to get an advance peek at how I might be spending eternity. 
Well, your analogy breaks down in that “betrayer of trust, slime, sellout and man-who-should-be-reviled” are all SIMILAR to criminal, whereas arsonist, sous chef, and cocker spaniel are all non sequiturs. (Well, arsonist is also similar to criminal in some ways, but clearly a non-sequitur when it comes to child molestation coverups.) And in fact, the word “criminal” is often used in a non-precise sense. I think most people, in most contexts, when hearing a person or act described as “criminal”, are happy to interpret it as “an act so immoral, vile or harmful that it DESERVES to be illegal, and DESERVES to be punished as such, even if it’s not”.
Granted, that leads to ambiguity of communication at times… but not nearly as badly as people using “literally” to mean the exact opposite of “literally”, a battle I’m afraid is already sadly lost…
By the way, you’re always harping on me for not applying precisely the same standard of outrage/scolding in all contexts. If this thread had been started about someone in an organization that you personally have absolutely no interest in one way or the other, but with the same ambiguity in the use of the word “criminal”, would you have devoted the same level of energy and verbosity in an attempt to correct what you viewed as a misuse of the word?
Seems like Mahoney is at least guilty of misprision which I think CA still has on the books. Even if he didn’t witness a violent crime to a child of a certain age and not report it, had he learned about it, which he obviously did, and went to great lengths to conceal it, I thought was also a crime in CA the way they apply it. But I’m not a lawyer, or that familiar with the case. How long did Mahoney conceal this without ever bringing this to the proper legal jurisdictions?