Russian orthodox pope wears $30,000 watch:

Originally posted by RJHinds
The report also said he had to look up in his records to see if he had been
given such a watch. Perhaps he had thought he was waering another watch.
You are jumping to conclusions without satisfactory proof. I certainly would
not think you would make a good and fair jurist.

What caused him to "look up in his records" on this occasion but not the first? Answer: the truth of the matter had come out by then. Of course, he couldn't keep denying that he owned the watch after the scandal had been uncovered.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
Let's just get back on the same page. When I said Patriarch Kirill should say 'I don't recall' I had in mind that he knew he owned a Breguet watch. I've repeatedly said that 'I don't own a (Breguet) watch' would be a good reason for denying wearing one. So let's look at your claim (the only way your argument makes sense) that Patriarch Kirill could den ...[text shortened]... one was lying). I don't see any reason to accept any of your speculative claims.

You say that he was given the watch by a very powerful political figure and was compelled to accept the gift, or someone with whom he had an "intima[te]" relationship, then you say that he forgot about it?

No; I said nothing of the sort. Since this misreading seems to be basis of your counterarguments below, I will not respond to all of them in turn. I have repeatedly said I do not know who gave the watch, which is actually a very significant concern if we are to apportion judgment to the Patriarch.

you demand an unreasonable proof of deception (if universally adopted we could never conclude anyone was lying).

I don't see why. It is quite easy to determine within reason whether someone knows what they are saying is false and to identify motives of deception. In this case I am not convinced. It is not at all self-evident to me that a monastic would easily recall wearing the watch and naturally appreciate its value.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]You say that he was given the watch by a very powerful political figure and was compelled to accept the gift, or someone with whom he had an "intima[te]" relationship, then you say that he forgot about it?

No; I said nothing of the sort. Since this misreading seems to be basis of your counterarguments below, I will not respond to all of them in t ...[text shortened]... me that a monastic would easily recall wearing the watch and naturally appreciate its value.[/b]

Again, please provide your best case scenario in which Patriarch Kirill is above reproach. You have to have one.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
What caused him to "look up in his records" on this occasion but not the first? Answer: the truth of the matter had come out by then. Of course, he couldn't keep denying that he owned the watch after the scandal had been uncovered.

Actually, that's very unconvincing. The truth had already come out. When he made the denial he was already aware of the images and knew that images of him wearing the watch were in the public domain. The scandal was uncovered and he still denied wearing the watch. I can think of only two explanations: 1. someone pointed out that it was highly implausible that someone could have doctored an image of him wearing the watch; or, 2. he genuinely forgot.

Either way, it is not as if he was trying to conceal anything.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
Again, please provide your best case scenario in which Patriarch Kirill is above reproach. You have to have one.

I gave a long detailed explanation of the multiple factors that would make it difficult to refuse a gift. These are: social distance and intimacy, relative social power, the value of the gift. Unless you totally lack an imagination, I see no reason to provide scenarios for each permutation of these factors.

Are you able to imagine receiving a gift from someone you are very close to, is socially inferior and whose gift is not valuable? There you are, scenario 1. I invite you now to imagine the many alternative scenarios.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I gave a long detailed explanation of the multiple factors that would make it difficult to refuse a gift. These are: social distance and intimacy, relative social power, the value of the gift. Unless you totally lack an imagination, I see no reason to provide scenarios for each permutation of these factors.

Are you able to imagine receiving a gift from ...[text shortened]... valuable? There you are, scenario 1. I invite you now to imagine the many alternative scenarios.

So your chosen scenario is Patriarch Kirill receiving the gift from a social inferior? Would somebody socially inferior be able to afford a $30,000 watch? I don't think so.

Next.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
So your chosen scenario is Patriarch Kirill receiving the gift from a social inferior? Would somebody socially inferior be able to afford a $30,000 watch? I don't think so.

Next.

No. That is scenario 1. The next scenario would be someone you are acquainted with but not close to, who is socially inferior and whose gift is not valuable. You can continue the permutations. I am not willing to do so because I think it is manifestly obvious that the the duty to receive a gift is context-dependent and various factors are involved. If you are to claim that no matter what circumstances, no matter what the politics of the situation, receiving such a gift is immoral, I believe the burden of proof is on you to argue that.

Originally posted by Conrau K
No. That is scenario 1. The next scenario would be someone you are acquainted with but not close to, who is socially inferior and whose gift is not valuable. You can continue the permutations. I am not willing to do so because I think it is manifestly obvious that the the duty to receive a gift is context-dependent and various factors are involved. If you a ...[text shortened]... uation, receiving such a gift is immoral, I believe the burden of proof is on you to argue that.

The gift is valuable. It cost at least $30,000. Please stop being disingenuous.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
The gift is valuable. It cost at least $30,000. Please stop being disingenuous.

I have not said otherwise. I will resume this discussion later.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Actually, that's very unconvincing. The truth had already come out. When he made the denial he was already aware of the images and knew that images of him wearing the watch were in the public domain. The scandal was uncovered and he still denied wearing the watch. I can think of only two explanations: 1. someone pointed out that it was highly implausible th ...[text shortened]... or, 2. he genuinely forgot.

Either way, it is not as if he was trying to conceal anything.

What "truth" are you referring to? The fact that there were two sets of pictures in the public domain, one showing the Patriarch wearing the watch and one not?

"The church apologized for the deception on Thursday and restored the original photo to the site, but not before Patriarch Kirill weighed in, insisting in an interview with a Russian journalist that he had never worn the watch, and that any photos showing him wearing it must have been doctored to put the watch on his wrist."

So before the deception was officially acknowledged Kirill went in for his gambit. Then afterwards, when the jig was up, he admitted to owning the watch but, conveniently, didn't recall wearing it. Remember, he said he'd "never worn the watch" then, later, he didn't 'recall' wearing the watch.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
What caused him to "look up in his records" on this occasion but not the first? Answer: the truth of the matter had come out by then. Of course, he couldn't keep denying that he owned the watch after the scandal had been uncovered.

You are still making assumption before all the details have come out. Where is
your respect for law and the benefit of the doubt. Don't you believe in the idea
of innocent until proven guilty? It seems to me you are letting your emotions
rule over good sound logic. 😏

Originally posted by Green Paladin
What "truth" are you referring to? The fact that there were two sets of pictures in the public domain, one showing the Patriarch wearing the watch and one not?

"The church apologized for the deception on Thursday and restored the original photo to the site, but not before Patriarch Kirill weighed in, insisting in an interview with a Russian journal ...[text shortened]... e said he'd "never worn the watch" then, later, he didn't 'recall' wearing the watch.

You seem not to realize some of this is hearsay information. For example, what
is reported to have been said is hearsay and has not been verified. Actually very
little of it seems to have been verified. This seems to me to be another case of
sensationalism in journalism.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are still making assumption before all the details have come out. Where is
your respect for law and the benefit of the doubt. Don't you believe in the idea
of innocent until proven guilty? It seems to me you are letting your emotions
rule over good sound logic. 😏

The "details" are not going to "come out", not in any unsanitised way. We're discussing the patriarch's moral character not any criminal act.

What "good sound logic"?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You seem not to realize some of this is hearsay information. For example, what
is reported to have been said is hearsay and has not been verified. Actually very
little of it seems to have been verified. This seems to me to be another case of
sensationalism in journalism.

I would have thought the New York Times is a rather well-respected publication whose journalists verify their information. What parts of the article do you dispute?

Originally posted by Green Paladin
I would have thought the New York Times is a rather well-respected publication whose journalists verify their information. What parts of the article do you dispute?

I am not disputing any of the article. But it is obvious that what the Patriarch
said is hearsay because the Journalist says it came from another person. The
journalist did not actually have a converation with the Patriarch. But in any
event, this will never be in a real court because no crime has even been alleged.