What you wrote was that he lends moral support to regiemes that kill Jews.
You are implying that he condones their policies.
As with most long posts like this, by the time I get here most of the good ideas and thoughts have already been said, so I’ll keep this short. Without weighing in on one side or the other, I’ll just make this observation: While you may not like what december has said here, he’s done his research and expressed his ideas in a very coherent and relatively non-emotional fashion. Those of you opposed to what he has to say would do well to take notes on how he presents his arguments. I haven’t seen a single post from him in the vein of “I don’t agree with you so that makes you an idiot”. A more measured approach to your objections will probably win more converts to your side, although from the looks of things that may not be an issue since it seems these message boards are significantly tilted toward the left in terms of the regular posters.
But, he does lend moral support to the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Yassar Arafat and they do kill Jews. These are facts. Must we ignore them, because they lead to an offensive implication?
Coukd you please provide cites that Pope John Paul II provides moral support to Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein.
Not a bloggers opinion that the Pope is provided moral support, not accusations against any of his predecessors, verifiable evidence that he provides support to Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat that he dosent supply to Israel aswell.
My earlier cites included factual details of a number of types of moral support that were provided to those two regimes.
Do you think Israel and Arafat should be treated as moral equivalents? Israel and Saddam Hussein?
The fact that the Vatican has diplomatic relationships with a country in no way implies that it lends moral support, the fact that the vatican receives envoys of those countries with which it has diplomatic relationships in no way means it supports them. The fact that the Vatican opposes this war in no way means it support one side or the other. Those are facts the rest are your opinions. Learn to distinguish between them.
Which is pretty much precisely why some of us participate in threads december starts. To be critical of how he treats Democrats for simply being Democrats, or Muslims simply for being Muslims(etc, etc). Refuting his bald faced lies, responding to his insults and mischaracterizations of both individuals and ideologies(and sometimes races/religions/sexual orientations/etc). I realize you don’t believe the fight is worth fighting, and you may well be right, but certainly you agree it is each individual’s perrogative as to how they waste their time/breath?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Coldfire *
**Just to sum it up, I give you a short overview of december’s Modus Operandi. [ul][li]Post highly inflammatory OP, using either a selective quote from a trustworthy source, or an entire quote from a complete fruitcake source. []Make sure there are some backpaddling possibilities in inflammatory OP, so as to facilitate later weaseling and/or semantics games.[]Depending on factual evidence behind the OP, select forum of choice. Hardly any evidence, or deliberately misinterpreted facts: GD. No fucking evidence whatsoever: the Pit.[]When people call you on your OP, start Back Paddle Phase I. This phase usually involves adding new facts from (somewhat) credible cites, albeit typically misrepresented in some way. []When people still don’t buy your crap, start Back Paddle Phase II. This involves the much-loved semantics games: start selectively quoting people’s rebuttals, put words in their mouths, and claim they misinterpreted your words. If necessary, start debating the meaning of common one-syllable words.[]When the majority of the pack are still out for your blood, start using humour. A light-hearted joke, a friendly jab at one of the fuming moderators. Be sure to toss in the odd grin smilie or two.[]As a last resort, use the fucking limericks. You’re quite good at it, so it would be shame not to use them. Repeat until your adversaries are bored to such a degree that they just leave the thread.[]When thread falls below the 20th position of the first forum page, select new topic and go back to step one.[*]Whatever you do, don’t curse, and don’t call anybody any names. As we all know, those are surefire signs of troll behaviour, and we don’t wanna be accused of THAT. Just be polite, pretend to provide cites for your ridiculous claims, and you’ll get away with murder.[/ul]**[/li][/QUOTE]
You forgot the piece that infuriates the most people. This should go in somewhere in the first three bullets.[ul][li]In an OP, you have to establish a black-and-white division of possible stances on this issue, clearly indicate which side you are on and clearly indicate that anyone who doesn’t agree with your position is in the other camp. Bonus points if you can make the other camp something clearly despicable.[/ul]Incidentally, this seems to be the primary reason so many threads become flamefests from the first reply. I often hear people say things like “Jesus! Can’t you guys ever let him post without flaming him immediately?” While I’m not a fan of knee-jerk reactions, the people who make these accusations are often missing a critical point. The reason he draws immediate flames in a great many threads is because in the freaking OP he essentially accuses anyone who doesn’t agree with him of something despicable or characterizes them as something despicable. He throws the first stone in almost every damn thread. [/li]
He did a particularly good job of this(LOTS of bonus points) during the last election season with his “homophobic democrats” OPs. Either condemn the ads(which almost no one was even aware of, even he hadn’t bothered to actually WATCH the ad) or you’re a “hypocrite and homophobe”.
If this isn’t trolling then we probably need to update the definition.
Enjoy,
Steven
PS minty, back already? Did you fly? You wouldn’t have had much time for diving if you flew down and flew back(for non-divers, diving is generally verboten after flying(and vice-versa) because pressurized plane cabins force nitrogen into your bloodstream just like diving does and you could get the bends after less dive time(or on the plane on the way home :eek: ) than usual and planning the length of your dive is very difficult). That’s a pretty short vacation! Hope you had a good time and we’ll be seeing some hammerhead shark pics in MPSIMS pretty soon. I’m really having a hard time not making a “What do you call a lawyer surrounded by hammerhead sharks…” type jokes. The fact that your screen name comes from a breath mint doesn’t make it ANY easier 
Scylla, I figured you’d understand. I know you’ve been pretty annoyed with him when he has mischaracterized you in the past. I seem to recall you being pretty pissed off and calling him a “liar” when he mischaracterized your response to him in one of the “Homophobic Democrats” threads. His ideology plays a minor part, but his attitude and approach to the debate(specifically the way he demonizes ideas put forth in opposition to his and the people who put them forth) are the main reason he gets flack.
So basically, you’re admitting to the agenda that Coldfire posted?
And you still don’t see anything WRONG with that?
:smack:
You know, if you think it is a refutable position, then make a thread about it in GD or something. But don’t just post driveby remarks and then only explain when you’ve been Pitted.
No, they weren’t. they were other people who agree with your point of view but don’t provide any real facts.
Personally, I see both Arafat and Sharon on the same level, one no better or worse than the other.
As for the Pope, I have still to see any real support for Saddam, or even any moral support for his regieme.
please have a read of this article, as I think it compares and contrasts the Vatican’s view with the current US view in an even handed manner.
Here is the Pope condemning terrorism
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/30/gen.pope.terror/
here is the Pope condemning Suicide bombing
http://www.cwnews.com/Browse/1997/09/5744.htm
Here is the Pope condemning all violence in the name of religion
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/01/24/pope.assisi/
I’m looking everywhere for a cite that says the The Pope supports Saddams reign, but cant seem to find one.
First of all, lying is making a factual statement that is demonstratably false, for example when someone is quoted directly, and they come back and claim their words were changed when a simple glance at the first post proves that they weren’t. Lying is when someone says “Poster X said this” when in fact poster X said something else. These are the behaviors I’ve been condeming here. Lying and “whining” are totally different things and I have been doing neither.
Why don’t you ask me to do something hard. Hmmm. Most of the responses here in response to a video showing a bunch of war protestors with no alternatives in mind other than “war is bad, man” ( I’m excluding vibrotronica because she actually offered alternatives, kudos to her)
You yourself do a wonderful job of turning a thread about France’s veto into a “bloodthirsty Bush” thread here. Can’t have any realistic debate about problems with the positions of international war opponents, can we? :rolleyes:
That’s only the first 2 threads I opened in GD. Need I go on?
You wanna oppose them? Prove they exist first. I haven’t even seen credable attampts to prove that it’s bigotry and ignorance we’re dealing with here. December has provided cites and reasoning for his position, his opponents seem to have dismissed his arguements out of hand without much besides “Dude, you’re dissing Catholics ( Which he hasn’t done, he’s talked about the Pope and the politics of the Catholic Church), you’re a bigot!”
**
[/QUOTE]
Hmm. Somehow I lost the last sentence of that, which read “Twisty is the only one I see dealing with the specific accusations made”
And your bold tag 
“Could almost be” means “cannot be”.
You do admit Coldie’s description was accurate. That’s a start.
no it dosent.
It means that while it dosent specifically say X, it is a fair assumption that it could be interpreted as X.
Thanks for the cites, **TwistofFate **. I think the significance is more in what the Pope did NOT say. The Pope didn’t criticize Saddam for
– invading Kuwait (of course that was 13 years ago)
– bombing Israel (also 13 years ago)
– not fulfilling its cease-fire agreement to disarm its WMDs over a 13 year period
– not obeying 17 Security Council resolutions
– giving a false delaration regarding its WMDs in response to Resolution #1441.
– torturing its citizens
– murdering its citizens.
The Suicide Bombing quote you cited actually seems to support my case:
The Pope treated Israelis and Palestinians as equals, even though the victims were Israelis and the perpetrators were most likely Palestinian. (One could argue that the Pope was referring only to “Palestinians of good will,” and excluding the bombers. If so, that’s a subtle distinction, which would be lost on most readers.)
We will just have to disagree on this point. It’s true that my cites included opinions, but I think they also provided a number of facts, such as[ul][li]The 49 year delay in the Vatican’s recognition of Israel.[/li][li]The Pope said that Israel was “desecrating Christian holy sites” when the IDF surrounded the Church of Nativity during its takeover by Palestinian terrorists, yet didn’t mention later how the church really was desecrated—by those selfsame terrorists.[]When Kurt Waldheim’s Nazi past was revealed, the Pope didn’t let that stop him from honoring the man that no one else in the world would meet with.[]The Vatican signed an accord with the Palestinians condemning any “unilateral action” on Jerusalem by Israel. No such accord was signed with Israel when Jordan ruled Jerusalem, threw out all the Jews, forbade Jews to visit the Western Wall, and descrated Jewish holy sites and graveyards.[/li][]Tarik Aziz was allowed to conduct a press conference on Vatican grounds.[]The Pope granted a lengthy audience to Tarik Aziz.[]Papal envoy Cardinal Etchegaray’s incorrectly gave credit to Saddam Hussein for “doing everything to avoid war.” (Of course, Saddam could have avoided war by actually disarming his banned weapons.)[]The Pope’s failed to approve military action against the Taliban.[/ul] You may not agree that these facts prove my case, but you cannot deny that I provided a number of facts to back up the opinion.
I do not accept spin as a well-presented or coherent argument. I have yet to see a fair presentation of a position by december.
Please provide an example of a post of his you admire, and that shows the qualities of well-researched, fairly presented, or coherent argument.
Try looking at the post just above yours. December has presented all of his points in one place. Have at them and disprove them-or was saying “that’s just spin” you idea of refuting something?
Twist, the person most highly motivated to eliminate the word “almost” could not do so, in a rare burst of honesty. That does mean “No”, in English.
Now, reread Coldfire’s post before trying to defend the subject further, m’kay?
ok, two points real quick - ‘failing to approve military action’ against another regime - how does that equate to that whole position? Especially since (it appears) that the position of the Church generally is ‘anti war’. This would only be a valid point if you could show that in similar situations, the Church was in favor of military actions.
the ‘gave so and so a lengthy papal visit’ is also a no show. Unless, of course, you’d want to tar Mr. Bush w/the same brush, since he’s given ‘lengthy visits’ to Yassar Arafat, and, it appears, a Florida professor who was just arrested for terrorism.
In fact, the very specific things linked to above decembers’ post heighten the bar substantially - since they directly condemn killings of jews by suicide bombers etc. IOW, there is substantial evidence that his claim is not true, that the CHurch does most emphatically decry the killing of Jews, vs ‘offer moral support to those who kill’.
Of course, one problem for december is the whole general Church position of ‘loving the sinner, hating the sin’ which requires that the Church continue to deal with the person (state etc.) even if they disapprove (even strongly) of their actions.
Ah, the famous Mykeru ploy – “You didn’t say X, so you obviously believe the extreme opposite of X”.