2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you think Locke didn't see the Fundamental Rights as a means to an end (and, whether you like it or not, that end was a Divine one), then you're the one who should be re-reading Locke, not me.
You show you don't understand Locke when you make such asinine statements. According to Locke, the State is formed for the primary purpose of protecting Fundamental Rights. There is no other "ends" that rights are a "means" to. You really need to actually read Locke and Paine.
You first sentence is deliberate mis-statement of something I said. I wish you'd stop being so blatantly deceitful.
EDIT: How can a direct quote from you be a mis-statement?
EDIT2: Here's a nice summary of Locke's views on the ends of Fundamental Rights:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#HumNatGodPur
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI endorse a very liberal application of the clean hands principle.
I'm interested in finding out more about this. What happens in the following situations:
1. X steals $100 from a convenience store. Y steals $1000 from X. Is X entitled to recover anything at all from Y?
2. X (a female) steals $100 from a convenience store. Y rapes X. Is X entitled to a civil claim?
In (1), X clearly has no right to ask the court for remedy.
In (2), X may or may not have clean hands. If she was raped by the store owner in retribution for the theft, then no. If the two incidents were wholly unrelated, then yes.
Ask no1marauder how it is applied in the real world.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesInteresting. I wouldn't call your application "liberal", though.
I endorse a very liberal application of the clean hands principle.
In (1), X clearly has no right to ask the court for remedy.
In (2), X may or may not have clean hands. If she was raped by the store owner in retribution for the theft, then no. If the two incidents were wholly unrelated, then yes.
Ask no1marauder how it is applied in the real world.
Here's another case example:
X is a reformed drug addict who now runs a catering business. Y, who knows X's past, publicly accuses him of being a drug dealer - causing X to lose clients and, eventually, go bankrupt.
Is X entitled to compensation?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't see why not. His drug addiction doesn't entail that he has civilly wronged anybody. You haven't given me any reason to believe that X doesn't have clean hands.
Interesting. I wouldn't call your application "liberal", though.
Here's another case example:
X is a reformed drug addict who now runs a catering business. Y, who knows X's past, publicly accuses him of being a drug dealer - causing X to lose clients and, eventually, go bankrupt.
Is X entitled to compensation?
Now if the defendant in the hypothetical action can show that X used to steal money to support his habit and has never paid restitution, then I would hope that the court finds that X does not have clean hands.
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis is extreme Goal post moving; of course Locke was a theist and a Christian so he saw men's ultimate purpose as having to do with God's will. This is far different from your initial claim which was that fundamental rights were a means to some end of Man's. This is a typical sophist "argument" from you.
If you think Locke didn't see the Fundamental Rights as a means to an end (and, whether you like it or not, that end was a Divine one), then you're the one who should be re-reading Locke, not me.
EDIT: How can a direct quote from you be a mis-statement?
EDIT2: Here's a nice summary of Locke's views on the ends of Fundamental Rights:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#HumNatGodPur
EDIT: And, of course, you made no direct quote from any post of mine in your post.
I also notice you deliberately ignored the reference to Paine who actually was one of the Founders of the US;since he was a Deist, this wouldn't fit into your "argument".
1 edit
Originally posted by ChurlantThe RCC's campaign against women is historically accurate.
The RCC's campaign against women is historically accurate.
The Church's history of iron-clad, militarily-backed power is also accurate - and this is most of what the book centers on. Granted these activities are (hopefully) not so prevalent today, but then the book's focus is less on the RCC itself and more on Opus Dei, which is a ver ting the violent, misogynistic, and controlling history of the Roman Catholic Church.
-JC[/b]
Except for the whole veneration of Mary bit, right?
The Davinci Code is getting the buzz because... ...it also makes us consider certain possibilities that some may not want us to think about.
You must be a genius many levels beyond my ability to comprehend, for you have stated my point exactly (except for the "decent story" part), and are somehow disagreeing with me. I dunno.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou say that like it's a bad thing. Amazing how enlightened we are, how quick we are to pass judgment on dem crazy folk from the distant past. Doesn't ever occur to us that folks then were doing the best they could with what they had to go on, regardless of the situation. Somehow NOW, at the apex of man's knowledge, we are able to judge all things aright. Yeah, right.
How many did they burn?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYour ideas about 'clean hands' are only partly correct.
They shouldn't give a damn about the Church being slandered.
You aren't familiar with the principle of coming to court with clean hands?
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c202.htm
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=211&bold=
In short, if the scales of justice are already tipped in your favor, you have no business coming to court to s ...[text shortened]... lean hands to bring an action against somebody mischaracterizing or exaggerating their wrongs.
Historically, clean hands is a doctrine of the courts of equity, which developed separately to the courts of common law as a response to the latter's perceived harshness and 'all or nothing' approach.
There's no guarantee that any one 'court' would necessarily take the principles of equity into account. Here in Australia, the state of New South Wales kept the common law and equity courts distinct right up until the 1970s or 1980s, whereas some other jurisdictions had abolished the distinction decades earlier.
If you stole $100 from the bank robber, the robber would still have a better claim to the money than YOU did, which may be all that matters as you are the two people who are party to the suit. There may be other laws that come into play and take the money off both of you, but there's no guarantee. And I don't know that 'clean hands' would come into it - that's primarily about whether the robber has done something underhand to you that means he shouldn't be able to reassert his legal rights against you. Behaviour towards others wouldn't usually come into it.
And finally... there was a bit of uproar here a couple of years ago when a drug dealer claimed a tax deduction for proceeds of his crimes that were stolen from him. The Australian Taxation Office fought him all the way, but every court backed him - and in my opinion they were correct to do so as the law stood at the time. Taxation law and criminal law are two totally different things. If you want to jail someone AND punish them by disallowing what would otherwise be a legitimate deduction, you have to spell that out (and the law now does), rather than rely on some vague sense of moral assessment.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHQuite a lot of Catholic thinkers were against burning witches, heretics and so on. They saw it as an inhumane practice. Fancy that!
You say that like it's a bad thing.
"One can but exclaim, O Christian religion, how long shalt thou be vexed with this direst of superstitions? and cry aloud, O Christian commonwealth, how long in thee shall the life of the innocent be imperilled?" —Anonymous Catholic confessor, 1592
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCareful. The veneration of Mary as the 'perfect woman' is inextricably tied to what
Except for the whole veneration of Mary bit, right?
Roman Catholics believe is her Perpetual Virginity. It is precisely this model
which compelled people to believe (for centuries) that sexuality was intrinsically evil
and that celibacy entails a higher purity. The RCC has since (thank goodness) repented
of this absurd position, emphasizing sexual expression as a healthy and sacred one
(albeit exclusively within the confines of the Covenant of Marriage).
So, in no small part, the veneration of Mary played a significant (while ironic) role in
the Church's long history of misogyny.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioBut, unlike the biblical account, RCC elevates her to Mother of God, bestowing god-like power/authority where none exists. While I don't wish to get into a pissing contest about her, per se, IMO, it was not virginity that was/has been venerated so much as Mary herself.
Careful. The veneration of Mary as the 'perfect woman' is inextricably tied to what
Roman Catholics believe is her Perpetual Virginity. It is precisely this model
which compelled people to believe (for centuries) that sexuality was intrinsically evil
and that celibacy entails a higher purity. The RCC has since (thank goodness) repented
of this ...[text shortened]... ayed a significant (while ironic) role in
the Church's long history of misogyny.
Nemesio
Praying to Mary, Mother of God--- it seems to me--- does the exact opposite of what DC intends to have people believe, with respect to the promotion of 'godess-ness.'
Originally posted by orfeoThanks for that. As I understand it, the key principle behind 'clean hands' is that it exists to prevent a criminal profiting from his crime, right?
Your ideas about 'clean hands' are only partly correct.
Historically, clean hands is a doctrine of the courts of equity, which developed separately to the courts of common law as a response to the latter's perceived harshness and 'all or nothing' approach.
There's no guarantee that any one 'court' would necessarily take the principles of equity into acco ...[text shortened]... (and the law now does), rather than rely on some vague sense of moral assessment.
Originally posted by NemesioSurely if the Church taught that sexuality was intrinsically evil, then that would apply equally to men and women? How do you construe that to be evidence of misogyny?
Careful. The veneration of Mary as the 'perfect woman' is inextricably tied to what
Roman Catholics believe is her Perpetual Virginity. It is precisely this model
which compelled people to believe (for centuries) that sexuality was intrinsically evil
and that celibacy entails a higher purity. The RCC has since (thank goodness) repented
of this ...[text shortened]... ayed a significant (while ironic) role in
the Church's long history of misogyny.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer1Cr 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
Surely if the Church taught that sexuality was intrinsically evil, then that would apply equally to men and women? How do you construe that to be evidence of misogyny?
1Cr 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.