# 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:** 25
**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, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/481 "2014-09-09T14:28:37Z")
> [@Trion](#): > > Well, I suppose we could treat your arguments with the same seriousness that we treat Elucidator’s arguments. But think that would be a step down for you. > > Alternately, we could treat 'luci with the same seriousness we treat you, but that would be absurd. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but I get the impression that 'luci is mostly just dicking around. And that’s fine. If that’s how he want’s to act on the board, so be it. I can’t change that. But I don’t think he cares too much about being taken seriously, so I don’t. And engaging in a serious argument with someone like that won’t get anyone anywhere. > > The question is, do you want to be taken more seriously than Elucidator? Or not? The problem is that elucidator remains welcome to pollute threads with his nonsense. And it’s not at all clear to me that his posts are regarded so lightly by the reading public. Sure, I could take the high-minded approach and say, “Yes, I’m sure there’s a conservative out there who does the same thing.” But the difficult I have with making such concessions is the same courtesy isn’t extended in reverse. If I am required to prove every assertion I make, am confronted with “Cite?” demands for things everyone ought to know, and am ALSO expected to concede points without making my opponents do the leg work, then it becomes trivially easy to price me out of threads. How long does it take to type the word “Cite?” And how long does it take to do the research necessary to provide the cites? Again turning our attention to **Evil Economist** : he’s demanding that every single statement be parsed and proved to an exacting detail. Why in the world would I be in a thread with that kind of nonsense and simultaneously graciously concede points? ---
**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, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/482 "2014-09-09T14:31:51Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Nope, I acknowledged it and changed the wording of my question, in post 408: > > > [@Evil Economist](#): > > > > Very well, list the posters who are implying that “Law should be punished regardless of extant laws…”, along with their political affiliations, please. > > > > Oh, and also cite their specific language where they imply it, please. Because I don’t want anyone to think that you may be inferring in excess of the evidence. “Very well,” is not an admission of either error or wrongdoing; it’s simply an acceptance of the new standard. You acknowledged my post; you did NOT acknowledge you manipulated “implied” into “explicitly.” > [@](#): > > And, just so we’re clear, the accusation you just made, that “when called on the strawman substitution, you did not acknowledge you had done it, but simply moved on” is a “a confident declaration, with no caveats about possible error.” Yes. And so it was. Because you did not acknowledge **THAT YOU HAD DONE IT**. “Very well,” is not an acknowledgement of wrongdoing or error. ---
**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 9, 2014, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/483 "2014-09-09T14:32:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Again turning our attention to **Evil Economist** : he’s demanding that every single statement be parsed and proved to an exacting detail. > > Why in the world would I be in a thread with that kind of nonsense and simultaneously graciously concede points? Asking that you provide evidence for your claims isn’t arguing in bad faith, it’s just arguing. And the subsequent direction of the thread showed that I was right to demand cites, because it turned out you had no basis for your statements. You’re not upset that people are asking for cites: You’re upset that you couldn’t provide them. I guarantee that if you could have shoved a cite down my throat you would have done so with glee. ---
**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 9, 2014, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/484 "2014-09-09T14:36:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Very well,” is not an admission of either error or wrongdoing; it’s simply an acceptance of the new standard. You acknowledged my post; you did NOT acknowledge you manipulated “implied” into “explicitly.” > > Yes. And so it was. Because you did not acknowledge **THAT YOU HAD DONE IT**. “Very well,” is not an acknowledgement of wrongdoing or error. If I made that same post to you, you would argue 'til you were blue in the face about the meaning of “very well.” Since I’m not you, I’ll say this instead: I apologize for saying “explicitly” when I should have said"implicitly." I was in error to do so. ---
**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, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/485 "2014-09-09T14:38:18Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Asking that you provide evidence for your claims isn’t arguing in bad faith, it’s just arguing. > > And the subsequent direction of the thread showed that I was right to demand cites, because it turned out you had no basis for your statements. > > You’re not upset that people are asking for cites: You’re upset that you couldn’t provide them. I guarantee that if you could have shoved a cite down my throat you would have done so with glee. Not at all. You demanded a cite for a strawman statement, as opposed to the actual statement I made. I was certainly able to cite a poster who appeared to be a liberal, and who implied clearly that Law should be criminally prosecuted regardless of the existence of laws. Subsequent evidence convinced me that he wasn’t a liberal: he believed in personal responsibility, which is of course not a liberal trait. I was unaware of that belief of his, but that certainly made me wrong about **Uzi**. But not wrong about the original claim. **ElvisL1ves** is a liberal, and he implies that Law should be criminally punished even though no laws exist to do so. [Cite.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17707746&postcount=332) ---
**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, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/486 "2014-09-09T14:40:05Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > If I made that same post to you, you would argue 'til you were blue in the face about the meaning of “very well.” Since I’m not you, I’ll say this instead: I apologize for saying “explicitly” when I should have said"implicitly." I was in error to do so. Apology accepted, since I agree you were in error. ---
**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, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/487 "2014-09-09T14:40:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why are you insisting that my stalls and nitpicks are worthy of condemnation and ignoring other stalls and nitpicks? I’m not. Why do you think I am? ---
**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 9, 2014, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/488 "2014-09-09T14:44:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not at all. You demanded a cite for a strawman statement, as opposed to the actual statement I made. > > I was certainly able to cite a poster who appeared to be a liberal, and who implied clearly that Law should be criminally prosecuted regardless of the existence of laws. Subsequent evidence convinced me that he wasn’t a liberal: he believed in personal responsibility, which is of course not a liberal trait. I was unaware of that belief of his, but that certainly made me wrong about **Uzi**. > > But not wrong about the original claim. **ElvisL1ves** is a liberal, and he implies that Law should be criminally punished even though no laws exist to do so. [Cite.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17707746&postcount=332) Continuing this argument isn’t a winning strategy for you. ---
**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, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/489 "2014-09-09T14:51:51Z")
> [@Reyemile](#): > > I’m not. Why do you think I am? Because I’m not really seeing your condemnation of other posters who engage in these tactics. ---
**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, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/490 "2014-09-09T14:53:23Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Continuing this argument isn’t a winning strategy for you. Really? I’m hoping it will highlight the rhetorical freedom given to debaters on one side of the political divide and denied to those one the other. I might be wrong. So, do you agree that **ElvisL1ves** fits the description? ---
**Author:** ![Trion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@Trion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trion)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/491 "2014-09-09T15:00:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem is that elucidator remains welcome to pollute threads with his nonsense. And it’s not at all clear to me that his posts are regarded so lightly by the reading public. Everybody is allowed to dick around if they want. And they will be treated like they are dicking around. I think his arguments are taken less seriously than yours. Alternately, I think people _like_ 'luci better. Which of those are you interested in? > [@](#): > > Sure, I could take the high-minded approach and say, “Yes, I’m sure there’s a conservative out there who does the same thing.” Are there conservatives who do the same thing? Yes or no? Are you interested in the truth or not? > [@](#): > > Again turning our attention to Evil Economist: he’s demanding that every single statement be parsed and proved to an exacting detail. I avoided mentioning EE because I have a lesser sense of his debate style. You compared yourself to 'luci so I went with what I knew. If you wish to revoke that comparison, then we’re done here. ---
**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 9, 2014, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/492 "2014-09-09T15:02:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Really? > > I’m hoping it will highlight the rhetorical freedom given to debaters on one side of the political divide and denied to those one the other. > > I might be wrong. > > So, do you agree that **ElvisL1ves** fits the description? You want the freedom to be wrong simply because you’re a conservative? Or you want the freedom to say wrong things without being called on it simply because you’re a conservative? You don’t need freedom, you need to stop being wrong. This post is a perfect example. You want the freedom to make a stupid statement about liberals. You think, regardless of what **ElvisL1ves** said or is, that will give you that freedom? How about, instead, just not saying stupid shit about liberals? And if you do say stupid shit, and you get called on it, acknowledge your error and move the fuck on. Seriously, just fucking stop digging, dude. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/493 "2014-09-09T15:11:37Z")
Is this the record? Whereby we have two concurrent Pit threads that have veered away from the trivial concerns of the OP and have finally arrived at the all important issue of liberal hypocrisy and the brutal oppression of **Bricker**? ---
**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 9, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/494 "2014-09-09T15:22:09Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > You want the freedom to be wrong simply because you’re a conservative? Or you want the freedom to say wrong things without being called on it simply because you’re a conservative? You don’t need freedom, you need to stop being wrong. > > This post is a perfect example. You want the freedom to make a stupid statement about liberals. You think, regardless of what **ElvisL1ves** said or is, that will give you that freedom? How about, instead, just not saying stupid shit about liberals? And if you do say stupid shit, and you get called on it, acknowledge your error and move the fuck on. > > Seriously, just fucking stop digging, dude. And just so that not everything I say sounds angry and combative, I will say that you provided convincing evidence that Cardinal Law can not be prosecuted under Massachusetts, Missouri, or Vatican laws. I have changed my opinion based on posts you made. ---
**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 9, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/495 "2014-09-09T15:34:29Z")
Just for laughs, in all U.S. government records about Bernard Law that list his religion, change “Roman Catholic” to “Atheist.” Its a purely symbolic gesture, of course. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/496 "2014-09-09T15:38:13Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Is this the record? Whereby we have two concurrent Pit threads that have veered away from the trivial concerns of the OP and have finally arrived at the all important issue of liberal hypocrisy and the brutal oppression of **Bricker**? **SDMB** : **S** traight **D** ope **M** essages [about] **B** ricker We’re gettin’ there. Baby steps. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/497 "2014-09-09T15:52:02Z")
Just FTR, I in no way mean or imply what the lying weasel Counselor thinks. My view of Law’s potential criminal culpability, and civil liability too for that matter, is that the subject has not been fully explored to its limits, and it may in fact exist despite the protestations of cult loyalists. **Bricker** ’s own “analysis” claiming that it has is not convincing, it being his habit to present advocacy as such, he not being a member of the Massachusetts Bar at all, and especially since his absolute loyalty to his cult is obvious to all and blinds him to alternatives. Now, how about discussing what to do to help Law’s victims? And Wesolowski’s? [James Carroll’s advocacy](http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/08/31/abolish-vatican-statehood/HCgsMqBjqaWWAvOkyD5tgM/story.html) that the organization relinquish the anachronistic nation-state status of Vatican City, on the basis that it continues to warp the group’s moral judgments and actions, often to the point of directly contradicting the teachings of its nominal guiding spirit, is very relevant but probably deserves its own thread. ---
**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, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/498 "2014-09-09T16:15:01Z")
> [@Trion](#): > > Everybody is allowed to dick around if they want. And they will be treated like they are dicking around. I think his arguments are taken less seriously than yours. Alternately, I think people _like_ 'luci better. Which of those are you interested in? > > Are there conservatives who do the same thing? Yes or no? Are you interested in the truth or not? > > I avoided mentioning EE because I have a lesser sense of his debate style. You compared yourself to 'luci so I went with what I knew. If you wish to revoke that comparison, then we’re done here. What are we, on some kind of a budget plan? I can only offer one comparison, and have to revoke it before I can discuss another? Are there coupons? ---
**Author:** ![Trion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@Trion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trion)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/499 "2014-09-09T16:17:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What are we, on some kind of a budget plan? I can only offer one comparison, and have to revoke it before I can discuss another? Are there coupons? I did not say anything about discussing another afterwards. I said we would be done. I chose to talk about that which I know and not to talk about that which I don’t. And I feel I have been fairly polite about it. ---
**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, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492/500 "2014-09-09T16:17:40Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > You want the freedom to be wrong simply because you’re a conservative? Or you want the freedom to say wrong things without being called on it simply because you’re a conservative? You don’t need freedom, you need to stop being wrong. > > This post is a perfect example. You want the freedom to make a stupid statement about liberals. You think, regardless of what **ElvisL1ves** said or is, that will give you that freedom? How about, instead, just not saying stupid shit about liberals? And if you do say stupid shit, and you get called on it, acknowledge your error and move the fuck on. > > Seriously, just fucking stop digging, dude. No. I want to be called out for stupid shit I say, absolutely. That’s what should happen on a message board devoted to fighting ignorance. Absolutely. But I also want that same standard applied to stupid shit others say, even when that stupid shit is in service of favored political stances. I don’t want to make stupid statements with impunity. I want you to WANT to do the dishes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-rcc-now-has-zero-tolerance-for-child-abuse-well-except/696492.md?page=26)