Michael, do you ever stop listening to yourself long enough to hear the other guy?
Yes I do that is why I always quote the other individual and address my response to that quote.
Why are you insisting that I am bashing the Catholic church? All I said was that they attempted to
not abandon their followers in Germany, and so kept the...
inroad to a highly unstable political situation.
Because you are perpetuating untruths and refuse to document them with a source or else abandon them.
Unless, of course, you propose that the Catholic Church would drop their followers like hotcakes in such a political environment to show their disagreement with that regime's idealogy...
If you will note once you explained that was your intended meaning I said I did not have a problem with that. But that is not how your post started out.
Then you are going from memory and certainly should not be expressing it as a fact since your own memory may not be reliable and the source the history channel used may not be as good and reliabel as you once took it to be.
Forgive me. Didn't realize we were in the process of reshaping history here...
No the goal is not to reshape it, that is why when one accuses another of an historical misdeed we need to do more than rely on our memory. Too many of the prejudices aroudn today originated from people generalizing from their memory or personal experience.
Yes to spread unsupportable untruths about any group is spreading hatred. If you had said that the Jews controlled the banking system in the world and so prevented certain people from getting loans, that would be spreading rumors. If you went further and admitted you had no source for it but a vague recollection of somebody on a tv show once said something like that then you would not be sure it was even true yourself and to spread a lie about someone is to spread hatred.
So instead, I should swallow the Catholic side of things, as
that is the only believable truth, and spread that alone?
No you should not repeat anything you cannot defend or support with unbiased references, like I did with the newsweek article and like Tony did not.
The old adage of if you have nothing intelligent to say keep your mouth shut so no one will know could easily be extended to if you have nothing verifiable to say then don't say anything. That simple rule would prevent a world of prejudices from forming.
BTW, I do take offense at your concept of my "spreading" hate. Your opinion. NOT[/b] fact.
One of the first lessons in understanding prejudice is that those who are being prejudiced against get to decide when it is occurring. You cannot rely on those doing the hating to ever recognize it or admit it. So my and other Catholic's opinion makes it fact.
You yourself said...
No but your attempt at mediation (at least that is how I took it) seemed to indicate that both sides had a point.
I attempted to mediate a ridiculous argument between proposed brothers in Christ. And yes. Both sides
do have a point.
It is possible that the other side has a point but it is not a foregone conclusion. Until Tony provides some proof (or you do for that matter) I am not willing to concede even that much, because you find that what you have conceded to in the past has a way of rearing its ugly head under a different form and stated differently and more viciously with the proviso that you can't possibly disagree as you have already accepted this as true. That is why your hinting that elite nazis were Catholics tended to support Tony's claim that elite Catholics were nazis. A slippery slope to be sure but still one to be avoided.
The problem is that both sides are so adamantly biased in their viewpoints that they see no other viewpoint.
I admit my bias that is why I never ask anyone to take my word for anything. I always provide a source to back up my cliams. Similarly if someone else provides a source to support their claim I will look at it and if it is unbiased and reliable I will see their side of the argument. Tony not only didn't provide an unbiased source, nor a reliable source, he didn't provide a source at all. So from my point of view their is no other side to the argument except one based on personal opinion, bias and hatred.
Do you have any idea how biased you both sound? And in attempting to put this into perspective, I've been lumped in with the Catholic haters.
You were "lumped in" because you hold to an opinion that is derogatory toward the Church and admit you have no support for it. That is the basis of all prejudice and prejudice is hatred.
Again Michael, do you ever stop talking long enough to hear the other guy? Because you have not heard me. You've proceeded with your preconceived notion of what I'm saying. You've heard neither what I've said, nor the demeanor in which they were said.
I have heard what you said as is evidenced by my replies being directly aimed at specific quotes from your posts. On the other hand your characterizations of me have not been based on any quotes from my posts, prefering instead to claim some underlying tone in my messages as proof of these characterizations without providing even examples of them.
Finally, I do grant that I may have missed the demeanor of your posts and am sorry for that (an I admitted it in a previous post which you seem to have conveniently forgotten) but it is often hard to get that from a written message. But not all of your posts were about calming the disagreement, you weighed in with your own opinion in places and offered no more support for it than did Tony and by that you have affected the tone of your message to one side, the side that is antiCatholic without basis. I hope you can see that as well as I can see the intended demeanor of your posts.
Poll
