I bring the potato salad.
Clearly, I should have said I’d answer any question except inane ones posted by clueless people. However this is SDMB and for some inexplicable reason, I thought I wouldn’t have any such things to deal with. :smack: Now go beat up on Valteron. I’m not the one warning of the impending danger to the whole planet from the Muslim hoardes.
Me, I’ll bring brownies.
It’s pretty obvious that **Valteron **is still pissed off because Optimus Prime is so much cooler a mech.
Just to clarify, you’re calling Contrapuntal a clueless person asking inane questions? That sure hasn’t been my impression of his posts, so I just want to make sure this is what you’re saying.
I hate to get this Pitting back on track, because I don’t really want to slam the OP or tomndebb, but I think what Valteron has a problem with is tomndebb’s RCC apologia. I encountered it and couldn’t come back at him with a good answer for numerous reasons, much of which was my own failure of will to argue about it, or research RCC dogma to fight with tomndebb. But I know where the OP is coming from, so if I can explain without slandering tomndebb, I’d like to try.
tomndebb has a lot of knowledge about the letter of RCC law. The problem is, there’s a lot of (apparently) misinformation about it, much of it propagated by Catholics, some of whom are clergy or laypeople. At least, there were when I was a kid being indoctrinated, 20-30 years ago. Those people who tell kids what the RCC stands for and instill their versions of the dogma do damage to people’s feelings towards the Church. They also do damage to the kid him/herself, which becomes intimately associated with the Church. And hey, sometimes they do other damage, but that’s aside from my point.
What I wanted to say to tomndebb on several occasions, but never did (again, my fault, not his) is that it doesn’t really matter, ultimately, what the letter of the RCC law says-- people have used the Church and their rendition of what it means to hurt others, and that image of the Church stays with you. You become very angry with the RCC, and with Catholics, and that feeling does not die easy, even when someone quotes chapter and verse to you of how your image of the Church is wrong. Too late! Too bad tomndebb wasn’t my CCD teacher. Too bad he wasn’t there to correct all the bullshit my relatives told me about the Church, God, etc. Too bad he wasn’t in the confessional with me when priests said ridiculous things to me about my relationship to the Church. Too bad.
tomndebb argues rationally, but not everyone is or can be rational about the RCC. There’s an emotional truth in there that probably has no place in GD, but might be the reason why tomndebb’s tone and attitude pisses off people like Valteron, who feel like their emotional truth, which is anger and hurt, towards the Church is being belittled or dismissed with a “well, that’s not what RCC law actually says.” No, maybe not, but that’s what its representatives on Earth have said to ME. It’s anecdote, not evidence, and maybe it’s totally wrong, but the damage of those wrongs have been done. They’re real, and that’s part of why there are a lot of pissed off, disillusioned (and possibly misinformed) ex-Catholics running around.
I’m not saying tomndebb is doing anything wrong, only that Valteron likely has a real POV here that is not being acknowledged in this thread, which is turning into another PALATR extravaganza. I’m not familiar with Valteron’s other work, so maybe he deserves it. Dunno, don’t care. Just offering another side to this, FWIW.
Rubystreak, I think you have outlined the situation fairly accurately–with one small correction:
I am pretty explicit about the fact that I decline to provide an apologia or otherwise engage in discussions about whether or not any belief is True.
I suspect that you are correct that Valteron is simply irritated that having corrected his swipe at the RCC, I would then not engage him in his long list of grievances. (Note that in the OP, here, he got the actual point of dispute wrong, ignoring the single point on which I corrected him while bringing up a point he later complained about to which I did not provide any resistance, but let me note what I did say:
We get folks wandering through here every once in a while talking about how Catholics worship saints, Catholics think that God only forgives sin if one confesses to a priest, that Catholics think only Catholics go to heaven, and on and on. This is the Straight Dope®. I think that we ought to be sure that posted facts are correct. We have fewer posters engaging in Jew-baiting these days–it used to be a popular passtime for five or six regulars going back to the AOL days–and I used to insist on the same sort of accuracy in the midst of their rants, as well. When I have the information, I will attempt to keep claims about Muslims, the LDS, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baptists, Episcopalians, and other groups accurate, as well. (I have had several sharp encounters with Catholics who posted errors about those and other groups. In a recent thread for which I was pitted for “abusing” atheists, my longest and sharpest confrontation was with a Catholic who was posting erroneous claims about Muslims and Protestants and posting rose-colored errors about RCC history.)
I understand that some folks are just filled with such anger that they feel a need to vent. My only issue with them is that they get their facts straight. Do a search on “intrinsic AND disorder” or “birth AND control” or “mother AND theresa” or any number of hot button topics revolving about the RCC. If you use my name in the username field, one thing that should become pretty obvious pretty quickly is that I am not out insisting that no one bash the RCC. I do not bash other groups and I do not get involved in discussions of belief, but if I see misinformation being posted about the RCC–or any other group–I will, in the spirit of the Straight Dope®, challenge that statement and attempt to provide accurate information.
If someone wishes to be angry that I will not throw myself at their feet and beg mercy for having the temerity to be a Catholic when they feel the need to bash Catholics, I do not see where this is my problem. If they have their facts right, I will let them post without interference even if I disagree with their conclusions. If they get their facts wrong, they had better be prepared to be corrected.
I wrote a poem, as is my wont
An ode to this thread:
All come together in digital awe
may ye fall before the trite trolls paw
a wicked ire fall through the land
from keyboard to the net broadband
A rise from all through the disparate ether
1s and 0s full of emotion in nether
Post we all to our hearts content
Until we feel no more can vent
the troll’s illogical posting style
outclasses us all by at least a mile
ad hominems and insults too
of this board we have so few
hatred is a lovely drug
numbing faults of the lowliest pug
dog-faced cretins and villains all
from baby steps to geezers crawl
Yet in a way we should feel so lucky
to have an attitude all cheerfully plucky
to shit in the sand with a disposition so haughty
posting nice things or even quite naughty
we really could all learn a lot from a troll
to grow thicker skin and post stuff less droll
so let us all say farewell with a grin
and ban him with vigor, and feel guilt for no sin
Amen to that. For better or for worse, you got me on your side, ready to back up you up to the best of my ability.
The smouldering ember are turning to flames and the OP has resorted to name calling. The polite tone in the OP was indeed just the prelude to the flame-out.
Film at eleven.
“For better or worse”
Well, I wouldn’t want you getting hit with my backswing (or fouling my sword with your shield) so if you see me engaged, don’t feel you need to run to my assistance. 
In 0.814275814275% of my posts I have *used *the word ‘liar, not called someone a liar,’ and from that you extrapolate a *fondness *on my part? I take it back. You’re not a liar. You’re an idiot. (0.7796257796%.)
You do understand that the search brings up posts in which the target word is enclosed by quote tags, right?
While we are at it, the terms hypothetical, conditional, and ‘an analogy’ are rarely used interchangeably by people who wish to convey precise meaning. You know what I’m talking about. Or maybe you don’t.
By the way, you are considerably more fond of the word ‘fuck’ than I am of ‘liar’ (0.9880395215%). You might want to consider elevating the level of your discourse. Ask a friend for help. There’s a big wide world of wonder out there.
Yeah, it’s not about belief per se IMO.
Do you understand that some of us have gotten our “wrong” ideas about the RCC from other Catholics, some of whom are clergy or laypeople? Muddies the waters some.
Of course, you are right to do so. I do think you ignore people’s anger and dismiss them at your own peril, and thus get Pittings like this. It’s about facts, but it’s not just about the facts.
No one is suggesting that you beg for anything. I for one have not suggested that you’ve done something wrong. But you do seem to advocate for this idealized Church, when many Catholics do not live it and don’t know the rules as well as you do. Those people, mixed with folks like you and everyone else, make up the Church. Your correct information is great. But for some people, the damage has been done by the incorrect information and its application. Sometimes your tone makes it seem like the RCC is blameless in these SNAFUs, and I do not think it is. YMMV. This might inform some of the rage that comes your way on this topic.
Oo! Oo! Here’s a sunlamp.
What a great guy you are! Not too many people know that little “chef’s trick”. Because, as everyone knows, a potato salad isn’t a great potato salad without that extra tang provided by salmonella. Mmmmmmmm, yum!
Let me test my understanding:
Val here is a troll, heading for a flaming trainwreck burnout, posting a Pit thread about a Mod filled to the brim with glowing Righteous Outrage.
Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s the motherfucking Trifecta.
That IQ nonsense was just the PowerBall on his Lame Poster Lottery.
*For the record, I bring cookies to the table.
[Homer descending to hell]
Aah! The potato salad! It’s German.
So far in this thread, I’ve quoted Tom Waits and Homer Simpson. If I can figure out how to shoehorn Hunter S. Thompson in here, my day will be complete.
Dammit. I was wondering when the next Tomndebb attack was gonna come along, and it seems to be over before it’s begun.
Back on track now people, and Ruby please, stop distracting them with rational info. You’re ruining my entertainment.
Isn’t this a little like hating Jesus because of what his followers have done in his name? I mean, I’m an atheist brought up as a very faint, very mainstream Protestant (and thus have no dog in this fight), but most of what Jesus said seems to have been both rational and good; he seems to have been a more than decent guy.
The RCC can’t go back and change its past anymore than the Protestants can (and their record is none to pristine in many cases either). The RCC can’t control every detail of what is taught or done in its name any more than Jesus can prevent sleazy televangelists or politicians to cash in on his name. tom is simply stating what is church doctrine, that is, the official word of the RCC, for better or for worse - not denying that many ills have been committed in its name. Blaming him for that or getting angry at him for it is like getting pissed off at Jesus for the Salem witch burnings (done by Protestants, btw).
Don’t get me wrong, the RCC has a lot of history to apologize for, and there is doctrine today that still makes me simmer a bit (anti-birth control, anti-abortion, anti women in the priesthood, for example). They even have a fairly recent record of covering for priests’ wrong-doings. But the Church has cleaned up a lot, both wrt its doctrine and its practice. That doesn’t mean that your parish priest didn’t teach you bad things when you were a kid; it just means that they have tried to clean up their act to a pretty great extent.
So what is tom supposed to do? If someone states categorically that the RCC teaches X, and tom knows for a fact that official doctrine is Y, should he just let it stand, especially in GQ or GD, where facts are required? That, indeed, would be spreading ignorance.
You could always borrow this: “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”
From my exchange with Valteron:
In a similar exchange with a different poster who leveled harsh criticism at the RCC (although the exchange was in GD rather than GQ and it involved a poster with whom I have jousted over a failure to get facts right on several other occasions, so my language was a bit less temperate):
I’m pretty sure I do recognize that many misconceptions about the church arose from mistaken (or misunderstood) claims that were spoken by priests, sisters, brothers, and other teachers from the pulpit, in classrooms, in private discussions, and printed in books. I cannot think of any occasion when I have blamed another poster for being in possession of an erroneous view.
My options are pretty much limited to ignoring errors that are posted, correcting the errors when I see them, or bashing posters who propagate such errors. Since I already refrain from the third option, (and, truth to tell, I also often employ the first option when the matter is pretty insignificant), I am going to continue in my current practice for more significant errors. Occasionally someone like Valteron will decide to take umbrage with that correction, but as long as I refrain from calling the poster a dunderhead and I acknowledge that the misunderstandings often arose by way of people within the church, (in the manner of the previous quotes), I figure that I am doing a decent job of treading the path that corrects ignorance without abusing people.
I can understand why Valteron and others get upset, but I do not really see that I have a responsibility to allow ignorance to continue just to keep from angering a person who has (often legitimate) complaints that can still be expressed minus the point of ignorance.