Orwellian use of language: mom pleads guilty in cult starvation death

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
but there is no doubt in my mind the commonality here is an inability to think and reason rationally.

Scott Free, I am going to disagree somewhat. What you say probably would apply to many followers, they believe a religion and that is the end of it. Many times they couldn’t tell you why they believe what they believe (except that they were born it the religion). They simply follow their priest, Reverend or whatever.

So ‘inability to think and reason rationally’ may apply to some followers. But what about the leaders? Surely they can think clearly and rationally. They are after power and glory. Power over people and glory from God. They want to control their followers, keep the followers in line.

They have to think clearly, rationally as to how to do so. They have to use just the right mixture of promise of hope, promise of salvation, promise of rewards, they have to balance this with fear, eternal damnation for the soul, raining of fire and brimstone in this world and promise of Hell in the hereafter.

It is a balancing act. I personally think Pope, the Cardinals, Bishops etc. are quite capable of thinking clearly, rationally. They have to be if they want to keep millions of Catholics in line.

The act of not punishing the pedophile makes perfect sense, from Church’s point of view. It keeps the scandal bottled up, Church does not lose valuable clergy, the parishioners are none the wiser, so they don’t rebel, Church’s coffers keep filling up.

It made perfect sense to hush up, bottle up the pedophile scandal. Church was trying to protect its own, which is really its first mission. I have said it before, Catholic Church is really no different from General Motors, IBM etc. Its loyalty is to shareholders (Bishops, clergy etc.), not to employees (the parishioners).

So Pope and the upper echelon in the Church are quite capable of thinking clearly and rationally. It is the foot soldiers, the flock which many times blindly follow the leadership.

Although as a recent poll has shown, not in USA and Canada.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
typical of the terminally stupid, and the terminally afraid, to once again turn something into an anti-Catholic thread.

I was merely presenting evidence in support of my claim. I never meant to single out Catholicism.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
In light of the historical evidence of the papal malice, of the crimes against humanity of the Roman catholic church, one would have to wonder about the sanity of those who still adhere to the church's authority. Sorry if catholics are offended by that statement but it is quite sad to me that they have been so brainwashed by the church that they cannot see the truth staring them in the face.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Since you obviously don't read much here is a video for you:

YouTube - Catholic Inquisition and The Torture Tools

I read plenty, thanks. If you read, you also know that was all done a long time ago. If you want to compare this woman's actions to the church's actions back then, fair enough. But, the modern church doesn't advocate child abuse, murder, etc.

Off topic maybe, but I think you're the kind of atheist that gives atheists a reputation for being smug and condescending. It doesn't help the cause.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
A good argument doesn't consist of manipulating what people said and meant into something you wish they meant and said.

I suppose its inevitable, now that you're here, that this post will spiral into an endless game of you framing my posts and spinning them out of context and me correcting you.

Nonsense. You make incredibly stupid statements and I don't twist anything. You say...

"Meanwhile the men would be out raping and pillaging. Like we do to the third world and in Afghanistan."

and I asked the question...

"Who is this "we" you speak of? Are you suggesting people are being raped in Afghanistan by Canadian soldiers."

You could have very easily answered the question. You didn't.

Don't blame me if you want to say stupid things and then run and hide because you can't or won't back them up. So now the raping Canada is doing is to Afghanistan and not in Afghanistan. Fair enough. How are we raping and pillaging?

(you will notice that that is another question)

I'm starting to suspect your 16 or so.

13 next Sunday.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
I read plenty, thanks. If you read, you also know that was all done a long time ago.

You claimed a pope would never order a child harmed. I was pointing out that you were wrong. That popes have indeed ordered such things and worse. They are no longer allowed to but that isn't by any means the same as they wouldn't. They would if they could and history proves that.

If you want to compare this woman's actions to the church's actions back then, fair enough. But, the modern church doesn't advocate child abuse, murder, etc.

The Catholic church preaches against birth control and that single point has caused the death of countless children in modern times from HIV. It is very much comparable because both have murdered children out of ignorance - which is my point: wish-thinking = ignorance.

Off topic maybe, but I think you're the kind of atheist that gives atheists a reputation for being smug and condescending. It doesn't help the cause.

I'm not preaching anything or selling anything. I might appear condescending because this thread got hijacked by religious apologists. My original intent was to discuss how the media can and does subtly manipulate perception through language.
 
Last edited:

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Nonsense. You make incredibly stupid statements and I don't twist anything. You say...

"Meanwhile the men would be out raping and pillaging. Like we do to the third world and in Afghanistan."

and I asked the question...

"Who is this "we" you speak of? Are you suggesting people are being raped in Afghanistan by Canadian soldiers."

You could have very easily answered the question. You didn't.

Read it again. I see no need to repeat myself. My meaning is clear.

Don't blame me if you want to say stupid things and then run and hide because you can't or won't back them up.

I have never run and hid and I have always backed up my claims. It isn't my fault you can't read.

So now the raping Canada is doing is to Afghanistan and not in Afghanistan. Fair enough. How are we raping and pillaging?

We are forcing our ideas of government and social norms on them through violence.


13 next Sunday.

I thought so.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
You claimed a pope would never order a child harmed. I was pointing out that you were wrong. That popes have indeed ordered such things and worse. They are no longer allowed to but that isn't by any means the same as they wouldn't. They would if they could and history proves that.

No, I said "THE" pope, not a pope or any pope. That's the current one I'm referring to.



The Catholic church preaches against birth control and that single point has caused the death of countless children in modern times from HIV. It is very much comparable because both have murdered children out of ignorance - which is my point: religion = ignorance.

The Catholic church's stance on birth control has very little to do with the AIDS epidemic. I disagree with their stance very strongly, but blaming them for people becoming infected with HIV is misguided and simplistic. People who follow the church's teachings on sexuality wouldn't be at risk for HIV in the first place (at least not through sexual contact). If they are willing to disobey the church by having sex outside of marriage, there's no rational reason to argue they wouldn't disobey the church by using a condom. The real issues causing the spread HIV are lack of education, lack of empowerment for women and lack of access to condoms. HIV isn't running rampant here in North America because educated people with access to condoms will protect themselves regardless of the church's teachings.


I'm not preaching anything or selling anything. I might appear condescending because this thread got hijacked by religious apologists. My original intent was to discuss how the media can so subtly manipulates opinion through language.

The condescending impression came to me from the notion that if I don't agree with you 100%, then I must just be less educated. That's a theme I see in a lot of threads by a lot of posters. It's possible sometimes for two intelligent people to have a difference of opinions. I'm not a religious apologist btw, I'm not religious at all. I just believe in calling a spade a spade. English has a vocabulary of words with subtle differences for a reason. A cult is different from a mainstream religion because the David Koreshs and Jim Jones' of the world are different from the Pope. I don't particularly like the Pope, but I can't say he's the same as those others. I agree with you that the media's use of certain words can be done to manipulate public sentiment, I just don't see that here. I see that when they use words like "collateral damage" rather than saying "dead innocent civilians".... euphemisms are much more an issue IMO
.....
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
The Catholic church preaches against birth control and that single point has caused the death of countless children in modern times from HIV. It is very much comparable because both have murdered children out of ignorance - which is my point: wish-thinking = ignorance.


It has been pointed out time and time again. The Catholic Churches stance does not CAUSE HIV. IF one was to follow the Catholic Churches doctorine, then HIV would NOT be a problem. The death of children through HIV is not BECAUSE of the Catholic Churches stance on birth control, but instead is because of the people that CHOOSE to have sex outside of Church doctorine AND without proper protection. These people go against Church Doctorine by having premarital sex and/or extramarital sex, to then use the excuse to not use condoms because it is against Church doctorine is hypocritical at the least. If they were to follow ALL of the Churches dictates when it came to sex, they would more than likley not be infected and neither would their children.


I'm not preaching anything or selling anything. I might appear condescending because this thread got hijacked by religious apologists. My original intent was to discuss how the media can and does subtly manipulate perception through language.

Your "intent" was very obvious from the get go, and it was NOT what you state here but in fact was another shot at religions in general and the Catholic Church in particular.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
I still think it isn't religion that is at fault. It is our interpretations of religion that is faulty. Self-misguided lunacy.

I've been thinking about that since you originally posted it.

Religion is a man made technology and replete with abuse of every imaginable sort. This abuse can be external or internal but the key element IMO is that religion doesn't have any checks or balances. It is generally speaking a system whereby norms are frozen in time and society is rendered impotent to change except maybe through very long drawn out process.

I recognize that many good people can be found in religion. I would argue most are actually, it is the sincerity and motivation of its leaders that I mostly doubt, however the institution of religion itself is, with its dogmatic insistence on irrational adherence to antiquated notions, a primary force which causes good people to do terrible things.

How terrible really is the woman who causes her child to die though she believes she is doing the right thing, compared to the leader who preaches those things to her in a bid for personal power? The leader will rail against rational thought because it undermines his/her power and that act alone makes leaders more accountable in my opinion but the institution of religion, with its structure bent on self preservation and the destruction of rationality thereby, is even more accountable. It is the unreasoning belief itself and the reinforcing nature of its character that makes religion so contemptible. Aside from founders and leaders I will agree most everyone is a victim of this human enterprise. I could say war is worse except religion is far too often the imputess behind the war. Religion is cause of action not to be confused with the action itself.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]"I should have no compassion on these witches; I should burn them all.[/SIZE][/FONT]"

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]"In many countries there are particular places to which devils more especially resort. In Prussia there is an infinite number of evil spirits.[/SIZE][/FONT]"

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]"A large number of deaf, crippled and blind people are afflicted solely through the malice of the demon. And one must in no wise doubt that plagues, fevers and every sort of evil come from him.[/SIZE][/FONT]"

- Martin Luther
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
You seem to be excusing the woman in favor of condemning her religion. Personally, I think she is responsible for believing what she believes. She could have easily believed that what she was doing was wrong. She had that choice.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
It has been pointed out time and time again. The Catholic Churches stance does not CAUSE HIV. IF one was to follow the Catholic Churches doctorine, then HIV would NOT be a problem. The death of children through HIV is not BECAUSE of the Catholic Churches stance on birth control, but instead is because of the people that CHOOSE to have sex outside of Church doctorine AND without proper protection. These people go against Church Doctorine by having premarital sex and/or extramarital sex, to then use the excuse to not use condoms because it is against Church doctorine is hypocritical at the least. If they were to follow ALL of the Churches dictates when it came to sex, they would more than likley not be infected and neither would their children.

So now the church lets a disease do the work of an inquisitor. What a handy bedfellow. So their policies are the continuation of the inquisition - nasty - I didn't realize that. How horrible!
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
You seem to be excusing the woman in favor of condemning her religion. Personally, I think she is responsible for believing what she believes. She could have easily believed that what she was doing was wrong. She had that choice.

I'm not so sure.

Critical thinking is a skill not a choice. When I was religious I had never even heard of critical thinking and mistook logic for a quality of mind not a skill to be developed. If a leader sought to prevent someone from learning those skills or worse a confinement technology like religion sought to replace them, then the woman really has no choice in any realistic or practical sense anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vereya

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
The fault of the RCC is that it simply refuses to accept the reality that people like sex whether it is for the purpose of making babies or simply just having fun and with or not with someone they are married to. The RCC should bite the bullet and accept the reality that humans will be humans.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
So now the church lets a disease do the work of an inquisitor. What a handy bedfellow. So their policies are the continuation of the inquisition - nasty - I didn't realize that. How horrible!


Really....hmmm..... seems to me, that if people were to follow Church doctorine concerning sex, then the "disease" would be stopped dead in it's tracks. I would say it is you and those like you that rail against the Churches position are the ones that are promoting the death of so many. The Churches position on absitinence before mariage and sex ONLY with your life partner is 100% safe. Can you give the same assurances with your stance of sex when you want as long as you wear a condom?
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
I'm not so sure.

Critical thinking is a skill not a choice. When I was religious I had never even heard of critical thinking and mistook logic for a quality of mind not a skill to be developed. If a leader sought to prevent someone from learning those skills or worse a confinement technology like religion sought to replace them, then the woman really has no choice in any realistic or practical sense anyway.
So people have no choice when they prefer to believe in superstitions even though they have been introduced to alternative viewpoints? It is one thing when you are a child, your experiences are limited. After a couple decades, unless you lived in and never strayed outside of a cave, you'd have encountered a variety of stuff that alter your views. What you do with those views and the alterations are a choice.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
The fault of the RCC is that it simply refuses to accept the reality that people like sex whether it is for the purpose of making babies or simply just having fun and with or not with someone they are married to. The RCC should bite the bullet and accept the reality that humans will be humans.


No...the fault is with those that blame the Church for the fact that "people like sex". The Church has laid out a "safe" plan when it comes to sex. If people don't follow that, it's the peoples fault, NOT the Churches.