10 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KLike I said:
[b]We both know that you've been advocating for post after post on the side of the Church with the idea of there being a standard practice of the "image doctoring" of brands and that that's the issue that we've been discussing.
No, I didn't. I do claim that it is a practice in other churches. I have no idea about the Russian Orthodox Church b ...[text shortened]... I always spoke in guarded language about whether this is a practice in Russian Orthodoxy.[/b]
It's clear that there's absolutely no use trying to have a rational discussion with you.
Evidently some things don't change. You still act like a little kid.
Your lack of integrity is remarkable.
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI can't help from wondering if you were molested by a priest when you were
Like I said:
It's clear that there's absolutely no use trying to have a rational discussion with you.
Evidently some things don't change. You still act like a little kid.
Your lack of integrity is remarkable.
young for you to be so full of hate for a religious leader that you know nothing
about.
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYour inability to process differences of opinion seems to have no limits in terms of its sheer lack of common decency.
I can't help from wondering if you were molested by a priest when you were
young for you to be so full of hate for a religious leader that you know nothing
about.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOk. To be honest, within the space of three days, I do not recall the entire content of an article. I apologise. I repeat, though, I never said that the Russian Orthodox Church had a policy of doctoring images. That is your own ascription. I invite you to locate where I said that. I offered it as a hypothetic explanation of why the image was doctored and you have clearly misconstrued me. Nuance is lost on you.
Like I said:
It's clear that there's absolutely no use trying to have a rational discussion with you.
Evidently some things don't change. You still act like a little kid.
Your lack of integrity is remarkable.
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by Conrau KIf he's not in the habit of wearing a watch then the occasion that he did would stand out more. Also, if he didn't recall wearing the watch then why didn't he just say that? Instead, he made declarative statements about not wearing the watch and even went further, accusing others of the very thing that the church, in fact, did (doctoring the photos). The irony is delicious.
It could be a simple error. Perhaps he is not in the habit of wearing a watch and did not recall wearing one. I do not recall how long ago the picture was taken. Probably he did lie. It doesn't bear on this discussion. The question is whether at the time of receiving the watch and when he wore it, was he aware of its value? Perhaps only in the media furore ...[text shortened]... ll may not have given a second thought to this lavish gift, if indeed he appreciated its value.
If he accepted the watch as a (personal) gift, which would itself be ethically highly questionable, then he would have had to declare it to the church bean counters to be beyond suspicion. In the process, its value would be ascertained. Either he did declare it (and therefore knew the value) or he didn't. In both cases his moral character is dubious.
The degree of personal enrichment seen here, in the face of overwhelming social problems, is controversial in the general population, let alone a moral leader of an institution whose functions include charitable works. This is not culturally specific.
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by Green PaladinMaybe, he has Alzheimer's disease.
If he's not in the habit of wearing a watch then the occasion that he did would stand out more. Also, if he didn't recall wearing the watch then why didn't he just say that? Instead, he made declarative statements about not wearing the watch and even went further, accusing others of the very thing that the church, in fact, did (doctoring the pho ...[text shortened]... of an institution whose functions include charitable works. This is not culturally specific.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by Green PaladinIf he's not in the habit of wearing a watch then the occasion that he did would stand out more. Also, if he didn't recall wearing the watch then why didn't he just say that? Instead, he made declarative statements about not wearing the watch and even went further, accusing others of the very thing that the church, in fact, did (doctoring the photos). The irony is delicious.
If he's not in the habit of wearing a watch then the occasion that he did would stand out more. Also, if he didn't recall wearing the watch then why didn't he just say that? Instead, he made declarative statements about not wearing the watch and even went further, accusing others of the very thing that the church, in fact, did (doctoring the pho ...[text shortened]... of an institution whose functions include charitable works. This is not culturally specific.
First off, if he didn't recall wearing the watch, then, to his mind, he didn't wear the watch. Sure, though, he was in error.
If he accepted the watch as a (personal) gift, which would itself be ethically highly questionable, then he would have had to declare it to the church bean counters to be beyond suspicion. In the process, its value would be ascertained. Either he did declare it (and therefore knew the value) or he didn't. In both cases his moral character is dubious.
It is unclear the nature of this gift. It could have been a personal gift. The ethics of receiving such a gift really is context-dependent. If it were a formal gift, it is unclear whether a valuation would be needed. Are you familiar with Russian Orthodox diplomatic procedure?
The degree of personal enrichment seen here, in the face of overwhelming social problems, is controversial in the general population, let alone a moral leader of an institution whose functions include charitable works. This is not culturally specific.
Certainly it is controversial in the broader population but it would be interesting to know what Russian Orthodox Christians themselves thought about this issue. They constitute only 2% of the population so the outrage of the Russian public, always hostile towards Orthodoxy since the Soviet regime, is hardly a measure of the ecclesiastical culture Patriarch Kirill is a member of.
10 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau K[/b]First off, if he didn't recall wearing the watch, then, to his mind, he didn't wear the watch. Sure, though, he was in error.
[b]If he's not in the habit of wearing a watch then the occasion that he did would stand out more. Also, if he didn't recall wearing the watch then why didn't he just say that? Instead, he made declarative statements about not wearing the watch and even went further, accusing others of the very thing that the church, in fact, did (doctoring the photo regime, is hardly a measure of the ecclesiastical culture Patriarch Kirill is a member of.
Not recalling wearing the watch is very good grounds for saying that you do not recall wearing the watch. It's not good grounds for saying that you did not wear the watch. That's a lie. You don't think the fact that he owned a Breguet watch should have given him cause to hesitate? Why did he go further by saying that the watch had been doctored onto his arm? Obviously, because he thought his deception was assured; unfortunately for him the table caught the reflection and the jig was up. The church's subsequent statements confirm this.
It is unclear the nature of this gift. It could have been a personal gift. The ethics of receiving such a gift really is context-dependent. If it were a formal gift, it is unclear whether a valuation would be needed. Are you familiar with Russian Orthodox diplomatic procedure?
Are you saying this gift might have been a birthday present or something, totally unrelated to his position as church leader? A $30,000 (minimum) present? Wow! Most women are wary of accepting a man buying them dinner because of what it means. I wonder what a $30,000 watch gets you? A sun-kissed round-the-world cruise with Patriarch Kirill? Also, if it was a personal gift then why didn't the church say so?
Certainly it is controversial in the broader population but it would be interesting to know what Russian Orthodox Christians themselves thought about this issue. They constitute only 2% of the population so the outrage of the Russian public, always hostile towards Orthodoxy since the Soviet regime, is hardly a measure of the ecclesiastical culture Patriarch Kirill is a member of.
Why would it matter what the Russian Orthodox Christians thought? If the "ecclesiastical culture" is corrupt then surely some sort of reform is in order?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by Green PaladinNot recalling wearing the watch is very good grounds for saying that you do not recall wearing the watch.
First off, if he didn't recall wearing the watch, then, to his mind, he didn't wear the watch. Sure, though, he was in error.
Not recalling wearing the watch is very good grounds for saying that you do not recall wearing the watch. It's not good grounds for saying that you did not wear the watch. That's a lie. You don't think the fac ...[text shortened]... If the "ecclesiastical culture" is corrupt then surely some sort of reform is in order?[/b]
No it isn't. If you are uncertain or in doubt or if, at least, you were aware of the possibility that your memory was inaccurate, you would naturally say "I don't recall". If, however, there were a complete distortion of memory (a total failure to recall) you would naturally say "No, this isn't true". You would be wrong but that only proves memory is fallible. That's not a lie. There is no intent to deceive.
Are you saying this gift might have been a birthday present or something, totally unrelated to his position as church leader?
No. I am saying that the nature and circumstances of the gift are unclear and could be morally exculpating or, admittedly, damning. I do not know. I refrain from judgment.
Also, if it was a personal gift then why didn't the church say so?
It is quite clear that there is a juncture between what Patriarch Kirill says and the press releases issued by his eparchy.
Why would it matter what the Russian Orthodox Christians thought? If the "ecclesiastical culture" is corrupt then surely some sort of reform is in order?
I am not suggesting that there is corruption in the Russian Orthodox Church. Probably there is but I am not pursuing that point currently.
10 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau K
Ok. To be honest, within the space of three days, I do not recall the entire content of an article. I apologise. I repeat, though, I never said that the Russian Orthodox Church had a policy of doctoring images. That is your own ascription. I invite you to locate where I said that. I offered it as a hypothetic explanation of why the image was doctored and you have clearly misconstrued me. Nuance is lost on you.
Like I said:
It's clear that there's absolutely no use trying to have a rational discussion with you.
Evidently some things don't change. You still act like a little kid.
Your lack of integrity is remarkable.
Hopefully you'll eventually grow up and stop playing word games in order to be able to try to claim you are "technically correct". It's what young teens do. Fortunately most grow out of it in short order. I don't really expect you to understand this given your history of exhibiting juvenile attitudes and patterns of thought.
10 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI see it as wine, some wines are young yet vivacious, others when left to matureLike I said:
It's clear that there's absolutely no use trying to have a rational discussion with you.
Evidently some things don't change. You still act like a little kid.
Your lack of integrity is remarkable.
Hopefully you'll eventually grow up and stop playing word games in order to be able to try to claim you are "technically rstand this given your history of exhibiting juvenile attitudes and patterns of thought.
for too long, become acidic, which are you ThinkOfOne? Have you been left in the
cellar too long?
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by Conrau KNo it isn't. If you are uncertain or in doubt or if, at least, you were aware of the possibility that your memory was inaccurate, you would naturally say "I don't recall". If, however, there were a complete distortion of memory (a total failure to recall) you would naturally say "No, this isn't true". You would be wrong but that only proves memory is fallible. That's not a lie. There is no intent to deceive.
[b]Not recalling wearing the watch is very good grounds for saying that you do not recall wearing the watch.
No it isn't. If you are uncertain or in doubt or if, at least, you were aware of the possibility that your memory was inaccurate, you would naturally say "I don't recall". If, however, there were a complete distortion of memory ( ...[text shortened]... ussian Orthodox Church. Probably there is but I am not pursuing that point currently.[/b]
Everybody, including Patriarch Kirill, is "aware of the possibility that [their] memory is inaccurate". Therefore they should "naturally say 'I don't recall'". A "total failure to recall" is not grounds for negating the proposition; that's deception. If, upon hearing Kirill denying ever wearing the watch, the journalist asked 'Why are you so sure?' do you think 'I don't remember wearing it' would be a satisfactory answer? Surely there should be some good reasons for such a bold claim, such as, 'I don't own a watch' or 'I haven't worn a watch since I was a child', etc. Further, there was a clear motivation for denying wearing it (as evidenced by the doctoring of the photos). Of course, Patriarch Kirill couldn't qualify the answer by saying 'Well, I do own a Breguet watch but I don't recall wearing it that day' because that would mean all those hours spent deep-etching his wrist would have been wasted!
No. I am saying that the nature and circumstances of the gift are unclear and could be morally exculpating or, admittedly, damning. I do not know. I refrain from judgment.
Please provide an imaginary scenario in which Patriarch Kirill is above reproach.
10 Apr 12
Originally posted by Green PaladinHave you ever had or do you now have Alzheimer's disease? 😏
[b]No it isn't. If you are uncertain or in doubt or if, at least, you were aware of the possibility that your memory was inaccurate, you would naturally say "I don't recall". If, however, there were a complete distortion of memory (a total failure to recall) you would naturally say "No, this isn't true". You would be wrong but that only p ...[text shortened]... imaginary scenario in which Patriarch Kirill is above reproach.