Encouragement for Lucifershammer

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
1Cr 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

1Cr 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Argh! What translation are you using?

[8] (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
[9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)

EDIT: You also side-stepped my question completely.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Argh! What translation are you using?

[8] (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
[9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)

EDIT: You also side-stepped my question completely.

The meaning is the same, isn't it?

What's your understanding of misogyny?

Tertullian:

Do you not realize that Eve is you? The curse God pronounced on your sex weighs still on the world. Guilty, you must bear its hardships. You are the devil's gateway, you desecrated that fatal tree, you first betrayed the law of God, you who softened up with your cajoling words the man against whom the devil could not prevail by force. The image of God, the man Adam, you broke him, it was child's play to you. You deserved death, and it was the son of God who had to die! (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/womenfathers.html)

Women were perceived as the weaker sex because they were "continually full of lust" (paraphrase of Origen). If sex is evil, and women want it more than men do, it follows that they are more sinful, more depraved.

St Augustine:

I don't see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?

Etc.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I 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.

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.

Thanks for the answer. I understand your position better now.

However, I do not sympathise with it. What you're talking about is petty vindictiveness, not justice. In each of the cases listed, I see two crimes committed, that should be dealt with separately in courts of law. A guilty party still has rights, even as it pertains to the commission of the crime.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This 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.

EDIT: And, of course, you made no direct quote ...[text shortened]... of the Founders of the US;since he was a Deist, this wouldn't fit into your "argument".

This is extreme Goal post moving

#11 from no1's book of standard cribs.

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.

Please go back and read my initial claim again, then come back and tell me how they are "far different".

This is a typical sophist "argument" from you.

#3 from above-mentioned book.

And, of course, you made no direct quote from any post of mine in your post.

You mean I made all that "Big Daddy" stuff up? You never said any such thing?

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".

AFAICS, Paine had a similar teleological view of rights (only this time it was given to man by "Nature" for his "social life" ). So, it fits just as well.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The meaning is the same, isn't it?

What's your understanding of misogyny?

Tertullian:

Do you not realize that Eve is you? The curse God pronounced on your sex weighs still on the world. Guilty, you must bear its hardships. You are the devil's gateway, you desecrated that fatal tree, you first betrayed the law of God, you who softened up with nversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?

Etc.

1. No, it's not quite the same - the translation you used made it look like a matter of property (as FreakyKBH points out).

2. Hatred towards women. It's not the same as sexism. You can fairly criticise the Church Fathers for being sexist, but very few (I haven't seen any) can be characterised as misogynist.

3a. The Tertullian citation is from his work on modesty (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-06.htm#P263_52051) - it's amply clear from the first line that this is not a misogynist. What's more, he makes the same exhortations towards the men as well (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-07.htm#P445_93040).

3b. Origen is not the best person to cite on the subject - many of his views on the sinfulness of flesh were roundly condemned by the early Church itself.

3c. Augustine, like every other thinker of his time, was no doubt somewhat sexist in his views (although his recognition of the intellectual equality of women marks him out as something of a "progressive" even) - but he was no misogynist either. For a couple of nice essays on the subject:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/women-cp/augustin.html
http://heritage.villanova.edu/vu/heritage/allthings/2001SU.htm

These essays try to look at Augustine's works as a whole, rather than isolated citations.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
But, unlike the biblical account, RCC elevates her to Mother of God, bestowing god-like power/authority where none exists.

As you said, not to get into a "pissing contest", but calling Mary the "Mother of God" (Theotokos in Greek) does not bestow on her any "god-like power/authority". It's simply a statement that Jesus did not suffer from a cosmic multiple-personality disorder. He was one [Divine] person with two natures - Divine and human. For more on the Christotokos/Theotokos debate, look up the Nestorian heresy.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
2. Hatred towards women. It's not the same as sexism. You can fairly criticise the Church Fathers for being sexist, but very few (I haven't seen any) can be characterised as misogynist.

3a. The Tertullian citation is from his work on modesty (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-06.htm#P263_52051) - it's amply clear from the first line that this is not a misogynist.

"If there dwelt upon earth a faith as great as is the reward of faith which is expected in the heavens, no one of you at all, best beloved sisters, from the time that she had first "known the Lord,"1 and learned (the truth) concerning her own (that is, woman's) condition, would have desired too gladsome (not to say too ostentatious) a style of dress; so as not rather to go about in humble garb, and rather to affect meanness of appearance, walking about as Eve mourning and repentant, in order that by every garb of penitence2 she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve,-the ignominy, I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of human perdition."

Misogyny varies from outright hatred to a negative attitude towards women. Calling the female condition ignominious is negative in anyone's book. If you don't see a negative (and thoroughly patronising) attitude towards women here, you are beyond hope.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As you said, not to get into a "pissing contest", but calling Mary the "Mother of God" (Theotokos in Greek) does not bestow on her any "god-like power/authority". It's simply a statement that Jesus did not suffer from a cosmic multiple-personality disorder. He was one [Divine] person with two natures - Divine and human. For more on the Christotokos/Theotokos debate, look up the Nestorian heresy.

While you and other more disciplined Catholics may see the distinction, it's not so clear to the lay person. Those pictures don't help the assertion otherwise, either. But, we digress...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"If there dwelt upon earth a faith as great as is the reward of faith which is expected in the heavens, no one of you at all, best beloved sisters, from the time that she had first "known the Lord,"1 and learned (the truth) concerning her own (that is, woman's) condition, would have desired too gladsome (not to say too ostentatious) a style of dress; s a negative (and thoroughly patronising) attitude towards women here, you are beyond hope.

I'm sorry - but 'patronising' does not equate to 'hatred' in my book. What's more, patronising does not even equate to negative - it's obvious that Tertullian is affectionate towards his audience and sympathises with their (supposed) plight.

Calling whatever you want 'misogyny' does not make it so.

EDIT: Call Tertullian and his anthropology "sexist" if you like - I might even agree with you. But to call it 'misogyny' is, in effect, a denial of the sufferings of those who are truly victims of misogyny. I should know - I come from a country where hundreds of thousands of baby girls are killed each year simply for being born female.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Thanks 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?

No, of course that's not its purpose. It has little to do with crime at all. In cases where a criminal ought not profit from his crimes, you can do away with the clean hands principle and the rest of the body of law is abundantly sufficient to ensure that he doesn't. It's not like bank robbers would be keeping their loot if not for the clean hands doctrine.

Its purpose is to make sure the court is being used as it was intended. It was not established to serve as a baby sitter for people who can't behave themselves. Rather, it serves to protect those who do behave themselves from those who don't. It has no interest in settling disputes among thieves.

It's not an antiquated idea as orfeo would have you believe. Appellate courts regularly overturn trial court decisions on the basis of clean hands. Here's just one example from 2006.
http://www.courts.state.va.us/scv/appeals/060237.html

Originally posted by lucifershammer
A guilty party still has rights, even as it pertains to the commission of the crime.

Of course he does, but seeking restitution from the court is not among them. The court has no interest in ensuring justice among thieves, and why should it?

If Larry, Curly and Moe contract to split their robbery loot in equal shares, and Moe runs away with it all, do you think the court should have an interest in enforcing contract laws among them if Larry and Curly bring a claim? Guilty parties still have rights, don't they?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No, of course that's not its purpose. It has little to do with crime at all. In cases where a criminal ought not profit from his crimes, you can do away with the clean hands principle and the rest of the body of law is abundantly sufficient to ensure that he doesn't. It's not like bank robbers would be keeping their loot if not for the clean hands ...[text shortened]... Here's just one example from 2006.
http://www.courts.state.va.us/scv/appeals/060237.html

I'll leave it to the legal experts to analyse your position.

Just one point though - your whole "not a baby-sitter" court doctrine is tantamount to saying that theives don't have rights.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Of course he does, but seeking restitution from the court is not among them. The court has no interest in ensuring justice among thieves, and why should it?

If Larry, Curly and Moe contract to split their robbery loot in equal shares, and Moe runs away with it all, do you think the court should have an interest in enforcing contract laws among them if Larry and Curly bring a claim? Guilty parties still have rights, don't they?

Isn't this an example of what I said earlier - preventing a criminal profiting from his crime?

Your example is completely different from the three cases I listed earlier. My first case clearly included money that was not ill-gotten. In my second case, the objects of the two crimes were different. In my third case (with your "drug-addict stealing to pay for his highs" modification), the objects of the two offences are likewise different.

In your example, however, the loot is both the object of the robbery and the subsequent contract violation.

EDIT: You seem to be interpreting 'unclean hands' as essentially a "free pass" for unchecked retaliation and violation of rights.

Originally posted by lucifershammer


Just one point though - your whole "not a baby-sitter" court doctrine is tantamount to saying that theives don't have rights.

No it's not. Larry and Curly still have the right to due process. They can't be imprisoned without trial, for example.

[i]If Larry, Curly and Moe contract to split their robbery loot in equal shares, and Moe runs away with it all, do you think the court should have an interest in enforcing contract laws among them if Larry and Curly bring a claim? Guilty parties still have rights, don't they?

If your speeding(crime one) therefore breaking the law, and hit a person who turned into your lane and you can not stop in time to avoid them.(crime two) the peson who you hit dose not have a valid drivers lisence. the police offer must ticket the person for not haveing a drivers lisence(crime two) and the fact of the matter that your speed(crime one) caused the crash is null and void bacause the driver with out a lisence should have never been there.

in your situation.
no larry and curly can not bring suite against moe because crime two is overridden by crime one