# The RCC now has zero tolerance for child abuse. Well, except... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 25, 2014, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492 "2014-08-25T20:11:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/441 "2014-09-08T19:48:58Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Yes, let’s talk timing. That poll occurred \*after \*Law resigned and \*after \*“State Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly indicated he did not believe Law violated any state laws.” Speaking of forgetting to mention things, you forgot to mention that. How could I have “forgotten” to mention it? I have no idea what poll you quoted. You didn’t link to it or identify it. i simply pointed out that IF the poll in question pre-dated the AG report, then you couldn’t use it for the purpose you were attempting. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/442 "2014-09-08T19:50:36Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Be perturbed at the Midwest Conservative Journal, then. A website which by the way appears to be right of the far right: Do you have a link, or something that lets me see the context of the comment? For example, if the next sentence is, “Unfortunately, Law’s activities were not technically criminal,” then this isn’t a good example for you. Any reason you’re not linking to your cites? > [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > But Irish Catholics are a notoriously liberal bunch. Why is that relevant? The only relevant question about “who’s liberal” from your quote is: is Sean O’Conaill liberal? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/443 "2014-09-08T20:16:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of course, if you (or he) could show his arguing for traditionally conservative positions, that would be good evidence that I am mistaken. > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > He certainly stands on your side of the debate over on the Voter ID/Voter suppression thread. By the way, how did you rationalize away this evidence when you decided that the person (who explicitly told you he was a conservative voter and wasn’t liberal) was in fact a secret liberal and just didn’t realize it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/444 "2014-09-08T20:59:28Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > By the way, how did you rationalize away this evidence when you decided that the person (who explicitly told you he was a conservative voter and wasn’t liberal) was in fact a secret liberal and just didn’t realize it? As a Canadian, he’s used to voter ID being required. A Canadian favoring Voter ID is simply recognizing the status quo. ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/445 "2014-09-08T21:00:55Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > By the way, how did you rationalize away this evidence when you decided that the person (who explicitly told you he was a conservative voter and wasn’t liberal) was in fact a secret liberal and just didn’t realize it? In principle, this could be is legitimate.For example, if someone says “I’m opposed to big government, abortion, and anti-christian bigotry, but I’m not a conservative.” I’ll probably say, “Bull, you hold nothing but conservative beliefs.” But that’s not what **Bricker** is doing. He’s not providing any examples of liberal beliefs that **Uzi** holds except for this one, hence my claim his reasoning is circular. His line of reasoning is akin to “I think date-rape is really overstated and the law needs to distinguish between that and legitimate rape, but I’m not a conservative.” “Bull, only conservatives are so wrong about rape and only conservatives are so anti-woman, you must be a conservative.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/446 "2014-09-08T21:03:17Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > In principle, this could be is legitimate.For example, if someone says “I’m opposed to big government, abortion, and anti-christian bigotry, but I’m not a conservative.” I’ll probably say, “Bull, you hold nothing but conservative beliefs.” > > But that’s not what **Bricker** is doing. He’s not providing any examples of liberal beliefs that **Uzi** holds except for this one, hence my claim his reasoning is circular. His line of reasoning is akin to “I think date-rape is really overstated and the law needs to distinguish between that and legitimate rape, but I’m not a conservative.” “Bull, only conservatives are so wrong about rape and only conservatives are so anti-woman, you must be a conservative.” Then you should really point out that while someone’s self-identification isn’t dispositive, it should at least tip the burden of proof, so that it falls to me to identify other positions that Uzi has taken that are fairly described as liberal. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/447 "2014-09-08T21:16:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As a Canadian, he’s used to voter ID being required. A Canadian favoring Voter ID is simply recognizing the status quo. Well, Liberals \*are \*all about the status quo, right? So where we stand: You’ve only been able to identify one poster who is “implying Law should be punished regardless of extant laws…”. However, the poster you have identified: Self-identifies as a non-liberal, and told you so directly and explicitly Votes conservative, and told you so directly and explicitly Holds non-liberal political views, and you were aware of this prior to claiming he was a liberal Based on this you have concluded that only liberals “are suggesting, directly, that Law be punished by the action of the Pope, even if the Pope needs to explicitly and consciously lie.”? You are aware that this isn’t your finest moment, right? By the way, when posting that quote of yours I noticed that you used the word “directly”. Whoops, that’ll make coming up with another example awkward. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/448 "2014-09-08T21:24:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So I’d say if your goal is to show me a conservative doing the same thing, those are the goal posts. I’m perfectly willing to admit error – find me a conservative who genuinely contends that someone should be jailed, even when there’s no applicable law that could be used to do so. Googling “conservative blog holder arrested” yields some [interesting](http://conservativehammers.blogspot.com/2013/07/erc-holder-to-be-arrested-if-he-steps.html) [results](http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/04/27/eric-holder-canceled-oklahoma-speech-for-fear-of-being-arrested/). He’s the first guy I tried, but I assume I could find comparable drivel if I chose other liberal (or conservative) officials. [QUOTE=Conservative Hammers] Governor Brownback, asserting his own constitutional authority both from the state of Kansas and the 4th amendment of the US Constitution (states rights) responded to Eric Holder with a threat of his own. Apparently the governor has issued a statewide order to Kansas law enforcement to arrest and detain Eric Holder, pending trail [sic] under Kansas law, for threatening the Kansas governor and Kansas police if they attempt to enforce “state law” regarding gun rights. I love it! [/quote] ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/449 "2014-09-08T22:03:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Then you should really point out that while someone’s self-identification isn’t dispositive, it should at least tip the burden of proof, so that it falls to me to identify other positions that Uzi has taken that are fairly described as liberal. Which I already did, albeit not in so many words. > [@Reyemile](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > If that were my only reason to believe he’s a liberal, then sure, I’d have to admit my argument was circular. > > It’s the only reason you’ve _provided_ to believe he is liberal. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/450 "2014-09-08T22:39:42Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Well, Liberals \*are \*all about the status quo, right? > > So where we stand: > > You’ve only been able to identify one poster who is “implying Law should be punished regardless of extant laws…”. However, the poster you have identified: > > Self-identifies as a non-liberal, and told you so directly and explicitly > Votes conservative, and told you so directly and explicitly > Holds non-liberal political views, and you were aware of this prior to claiming he was a liberal > > Based on this you have concluded that only liberals “are suggesting, directly, that Law be punished by the action of the Pope, even if the Pope needs to explicitly and consciously lie.”? > > You are aware that this isn’t your finest moment, right? > > By the way, when posting that quote of yours I noticed that you used the word “directly”. Whoops, that’ll make coming up with another example awkward. No, it won’t. “Directly,” modifies the word “suggesting.” It doesn’t negate it. And as I explained before, I am using “liberal,” in the American political sense. A Canadian or UK person who votes for the conservative party is not excluding himself as a liberal by American standards. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/451 "2014-09-08T22:44:24Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > Googling “conservative blog holder arrested” yields some [interesting](http://conservativehammers.blogspot.com/2013/07/erc-holder-to-be-arrested-if-he-steps.html) [results](http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/04/27/eric-holder-canceled-oklahoma-speech-for-fear-of-being-arrested/). He’s the first guy I tried, but I assume I could find comparable drivel if I chose other liberal (or conservative) officials. It’s not clear to me if you’re offering up Governor Brownback as the counter-example, or the author of the web page. Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/452 "2014-09-08T22:58:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not clear to me if you’re offering up Governor Brownback as the counter-example, or the author of the web page. > > Which is it? If both are bad examples, then it doesn’t matter which is which. They’re both wrong. Say so. If one is a bad example and the other good, it doesn’t matter which is which. One counterexample is all **Varlos** needs. Your point is undermined. Say so. Finally, if you haven’t formulated a response to whether either is legit until the argument is “clarified,” you’re using stalling tactics in bad faith. It’s not terribly complicated to read the article and analyze the opinions of _both_ the Governor and the blogger reporting on him. We did that type of thing all the time in high school. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/453 "2014-09-08T23:00:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, it won’t. “Directly,” modifies the word “suggesting.” It doesn’t negate it. > And as I explained before, I am using “liberal,” in the American political sense. A Canadian or UK person who votes for the conservative party is not excluding himself as a liberal by American standards. Well, then you’ll have to explain the difference between “suggesting” and “suggesting, directly” to me then. I’m assuming there is a difference? And of course, we still have the problem of you judging “liberals” based on a post by one guy. That’s probably a bigger problem, but you got no shortage of problems here. By the way, I’m rooting for you to convince me you’re right. Because then I get to judge Catholics, conservatives, and lawyers by the posts of any one Catholic, conservative, or lawyer. And let me tell you, that’ll lead me to conclude some very interesting things about you. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/454 "2014-09-08T23:14:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And as I explained before, I am using “liberal,” in the American political sense. A Canadian or UK person who votes for the conservative party is not excluding himself as a liberal by American standards. Oh, before I forget, you are claiming that \*\*Uzi \*\*is a liberal even though he himself told you that he isn’t. I hope you didn’t think I was going to just let that slide. I believe that your argument was that all his opinions were liberal opinions (this turned out not to be true, of course, so you’ve already lost the argument, but…). I guess it’s proof time for you: please prove that Uzi is a liberal. Just to avoid ambiguity or misunderstanding, let me be clear: I won’t accept your opinion as proof, so please bring cites. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/455 "2014-09-08T23:20:25Z")
There is of course the possibility that American political standards are hopelessly warped by any rational view. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2014, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/456 "2014-09-08T23:32:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not clear to me if you’re offering up Governor Brownback as the counter-example, or the author of the web page. > > Which is it? The bloggers. (There were two separate links there.) I didn’t bother looking it up, but I’m guessing that Brownback did not, in fact, threaten to arrest AG Holder. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/457 "2014-09-09T00:45:32Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > If both are bad examples, then it doesn’t matter which is which. They’re both wrong. Say so. > > If one is a bad example and the other good, it doesn’t matter which is which. One counterexample is all **Varlos** needs. Your point is undermined. Say so. > > Finally, if you haven’t formulated a response to whether either is legit until the argument is “clarified,” you’re using stalling tactics in bad faith. It’s not terribly complicated to read the article and analyze the opinions of _both_ the Governor and the blogger reporting on him. We did that type of thing all the time in high school. The problem is that the blogger admits that he may be reporting a rumor. In other words, I deny the truth of the claim that the governor plans to arrest the Attorney General for some non-existent crime. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/458 "2014-09-09T00:48:21Z")
> [@VarlosZ](#): > > The bloggers. (There were two separate links there.) I didn’t bother looking it up, but I’m guessing that Brownback did not, in fact, threaten to arrest AG Holder. Great. Now, can you show me where those bloggers were shown that there was. No such law, and persisted in their desire to see Holder arrested? That’s what happened here, after all: it isn’t simply saying that someone should be arrested – it’s saying someone should be arrested while being in possession of the knowledge that there’s no actual criminal law to use. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/459 "2014-09-09T00:52:04Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Oh, before I forget, you are claiming that \*\*Uzi \*\*is a liberal even though he himself told you that he isn’t. I hope you didn’t think I was going to just let that slide. > > I believe that your argument was that all his opinions were liberal opinions (this turned out not to be true, of course, so you’ve already lost the argument, but…). I guess it’s proof time for you: please prove that Uzi is a liberal. Just to avoid ambiguity or misunderstanding, let me be clear: I won’t accept your opinion as proof, so please bring cites. All his opinions are liberal opinions. What’s a counter example? ---
**Author:** ![Reyemile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@Reyemile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reyemile)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/460 "2014-09-09T01:03:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > All his opinions are liberal opinions. What’s a counter example? What’s an **example**? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492.md?page=24)