The last few days has made me think that someone has declared all of April to be "April Fool's Day" without telling me. I know the Vatican City only has observer status at the UN but given the number of countries it has diplomatic relations with I cannot comprehend how anybody would think this is worth wasting any time on.
Maybe one of the lawyers here can tell me what I am missing.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100411/tuk-pope-has-no-uk-arrest-immunity-6323e80.html
QuotePope 'has no UK arrest immunity'
7 hours 38 mins ago
Press Association
Pope 'has no UK arrest immunity'
Atheist authors Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens proposed the action against the Pontiff for his handling of child abuse scandals in the Catholic church.
The writers' solicitor Mark Stephens said applications will be made to courts in the UK and the International Criminal Court for a warrant for Pope Benedict XVI's arrest.
His likely defence would be be that he is immune from prosecution during his visit to Britain in September, according to the lawyer.
Mr Stephens said: "The courts will examine the claim of immunity. I believe that an English court would reject it. If the Pope was here on a state visit, ordinarily a head of state would have sovereign immunity. What I believe is that because he's not a sovereign, not a head of state, he's not entitled to the defence."
He said that the Vatican was declared to be a state by Benito Mussolini, but this had no standing in international law.
The Pope faced criticism after it emerged that he signed a letter which delayed the punishment of a paedophile priest in the US for the "good of the universal church".
Writing in 1985, the future Pontiff said that he needed more time to consider the case.
Mr Stephens, who has represented abuse victims in the past said: "This will require the Pope to deal with the way in which he appears to have prioritised the reputation of the Catholic church over the welfare of children."
Potential charges against the Pope would be crimes against humanity.
Dawkins is a professional rabblerouser. Saying shit to anger religious people and win the praise of immature males between the age of 14 and 35 is his job.
There has already been a number of Actions commenced in Canada against particular Catholic Priests, Orders, etc. arising from abuse. If there is evidence that the current Pope was negligent then he could be made a party. Its an interesting question about whether his current office, or the office he held at the time, provides him with a defence.
Probably yes. But such a thing has never been tested in a modern Court.
Zombie Philip IV is stirring in his grave. Can a zombie still be referred to as 'the Fair'? :huh:
Interesting, though I thought the point of getting the ICC involved was to get a warrant for a sitting head of state. :huh:
That's also the first I've heard of Vatican City not being recognized as a sovereign. :unsure:
Quote from: Agelastus on April 11, 2010, 07:49:34 PM
He said that the Vatican was declared to be a state by Benito Mussolini, but this had no standing in international law.
Well, it has as much standing as any other bit of international law.
Seriously?
No state would ever arrest the pope. Dawkins knows this.
Quote from: Josephus on April 11, 2010, 10:07:09 PM
Seriously?
No state would ever arrest the pope. Dawkins knows this.
Probably the point he is trying to make is that such protection should not be extended...
Quote from: Josephus on April 11, 2010, 10:07:09 PM
Seriously?
No state would ever arrest the pope. Dawkins knows this.
The point isn't to get the Pope arrested, obviously.
It is to draw attention to the scandal.
I can't wait until the Pope gets arrested and all of you will be like "no wai!"
Quote from: Josephus on April 11, 2010, 10:07:09 PM
Seriously?
No state would ever arrest the pope. Dawkins knows this.
Ahem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Boniface_VIII#Conflicts_with_Philip_IV) :contract:
Quote from: Berkut on April 11, 2010, 10:51:56 PM
Quote from: Josephus on April 11, 2010, 10:07:09 PM
Seriously?
No state would ever arrest the pope. Dawkins knows this.
The point isn't to get the Pope arrested, obviously.
It is to draw attention to the scandal Dawkins.
Fixed your post.
Quote from: Josephus on April 11, 2010, 10:07:09 PM
Seriously?
No state would ever arrest the pope. Dawkins knows this.
Napoleon did.
And he got exiled to a tiny island out in the middle of the Atlantic.
Atheists can be idiots? Old news. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mgGBuEdvF0)
Honestly, I probably have less respect for this idiot than I do some radical clerics.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 12, 2010, 03:26:09 AM
Atheists can be idiots? Old news. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mgGBuEdvF0)
Honestly, I probably have less respect for this idiot than I do some radical clerics.
Color me unsurprised. :mellow:
It's like me saying I have less respect for you than for dead maggots.
Quote from: Josephus on April 11, 2010, 10:07:09 PM
Seriously?
No state would ever arrest the pope. Dawkins knows this.
Texas would.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 12, 2010, 05:48:27 AM
Texas would.
He would be arrested for the crime of: Exess Faggotry, Texas Penal Code 177.31.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 11, 2010, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: Josephus on April 11, 2010, 10:07:09 PM
Seriously?
No state would ever arrest the pope. Dawkins knows this.
Ahem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Boniface_VIII#Conflicts_with_Philip_IV) :contract:
Let me rephrase...no state in modern times would ever arrest the pope.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on April 11, 2010, 11:32:09 PM
Quote from: Josephus on April 11, 2010, 10:07:09 PM
Seriously?
No state would ever arrest the pope. Dawkins knows this.
Ahem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Boniface_VIII#Conflicts_with_Philip_IV) :contract:
:huh:
He could always flee to Germany. The "no extradition" law we have to protect Nazi war criminals would protect him as well. :P
Quote from: Alatriste on April 12, 2010, 12:45:33 AM
Quote from: Josephus on April 11, 2010, 10:07:09 PM
Seriously?
No state would ever arrest the pope. Dawkins knows this.
Napoleon did.
Napoleon imprisoned two Popes but never arrested either one of them.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 08:52:30 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on April 12, 2010, 12:45:33 AM
Quote from: Josephus on April 11, 2010, 10:07:09 PM
Seriously?
No state would ever arrest the pope. Dawkins knows this.
Napoleon did.
Napoleon imprisoned two Popes but never arrested either one of them.
So he was kind of like Cheney then?
I like Dawkins. He's fighting the good fight.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2010, 05:11:15 AM
Color me unsurprised. :mellow:
It's like me saying I have less respect for you than for dead maggots.
What's with you. You should totally have the Church's back on all this child molestation stuff. I would think you'd be happy to know that the Church hires members of your sisterhood.
As weird and self-loathing as Spellus is, at least he's still straight.
Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2010, 09:26:55 AM
I like Dawkins. He's fighting the good fight.
Trolling and attention-whoring isn't really 'the good fight'.
I guess I am confused what is it about being an atheist that makes you not a moron? I mean look at Communists, they are atheists and morons.
I am confused what it is about saying the Pope should be held responsible for covering up kiddie rape that makes someone a moron.
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2010, 10:45:56 AM
I guess I am confused what is it about being an atheist that makes you not a moron? I mean look at Communists, they are atheists and morons.
Or most of Europe.
Quote from: Pat on April 12, 2010, 09:26:55 AM
I like Dawkins. He's fighting the good fight.
Unprofessional in science? That's not the good fight. Hitchens on the other hand has been fighting the good fight for years. Of course that good fight happens to be Trotskism.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 11:03:18 AM
I am confused what it is about saying the Pope should be held responsible for covering up kiddie rape that makes someone a moron.
Bandwaggoner. :)
And besides, if any of the three of them (including the lawyer) think that this has even 1 chance in million of standing up in a court of law, they are morons. After all, none of this board's lawyers have come up with anything that would back their contention that the Pope is not a Head of State, despite my request in the original post, have they?
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2010, 10:45:56 AM
I guess I am confused what is it about being an atheist that makes you not a moron? I mean look at Communists, they are atheists and morons.
Strident atheists often give the impression that they consider those with faith moronic. I tend towards agnosticism, so I find the extremes of both sides quite wearing.
Besides, I'm crap at thread titles. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Agelastus on April 12, 2010, 11:16:56 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 11:03:18 AM
I am confused what it is about saying the Pope should be held responsible for covering up kiddie rape that makes someone a moron.
Bandwaggoner. :)
And besides, if any of the three of them (including the lawyer) think that this has even 1 chance in million of standing up in a court of law, they are morons. After all, none of this board's lawyers have come up with anything that would back their contention that the Pope is not a Head of State, despite my request in the original post, have they?
I think we've already established that there isn't any chance of this going to court. That clearly is not the point.
Although I would contend that if you use the criteria of "I requested something, and nobody answered me, so I will assume whatever is convenient" to decide what is or is not a valid contention, YOU are the moron. :P
Quote from: Agelastus on April 12, 2010, 11:18:17 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2010, 10:45:56 AM
I guess I am confused what is it about being an atheist that makes you not a moron? I mean look at Communists, they are atheists and morons.
Strident atheists often give the impression that they consider those with faith moronic. I tend towards agnosticism, so I find the extremes of both sides quite wearing.
Besides, I'm crap at thread titles. :Embarrass:
Agnostics are so cute.
They make up for the lack of cuteness, or any other redeeming feature of atheists.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2010, 11:48:37 AM
They make up for the lack of cuteness, or any other redeeming feature of atheists.
You don't even realize how contradictory that statement is, do you?
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 11:52:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2010, 11:48:37 AM
They make up for the lack of cuteness, or any other redeeming feature of atheists.
You don't even realize how contradictory that statement is, do you?
Apparently not. But I imagine you're going to tell me.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 11:45:38 AM
I think we've already established that there isn't any chance of this going to court. That clearly is not the point.
Although I would contend that if you use the criteria of "I requested something, and nobody answered me, so I will assume whatever is convenient" to decide what is or is not a valid contention, YOU are the moron. :P
Given that Britain recognized the Holy See and its Head of Government, the Pope, in 1982, I dare say you are correct (and that Agelastus could actually have looked this up with a little effort, rather than merely assuming that the board's lawyers were his to command), I think you are correct that this has no chance to go to court.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 11:45:38 AM
I think we've already established that there isn't any chance of this going to court. That clearly is not the point.
Then it has no point at all, since if they know it has no chance then they are just doing it for the publicity. Since one can hardly argue that the long-running problem of children being abused by Catholic priests has not already received worldwide coverage, wasting their effort on this non-starter of a case is moronic.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 11:45:38 AM
Although I would contend that if you use the criteria of "I requested something, and nobody answered me, so I will assume whatever is convenient" to decide what is or is not a valid contention, YOU are the moron. :P
Saying I am assuming "whatever is convenient" is something of a misrepresentation given that I stated what I had assumed from my own knowledge in the opening post. Nor have you disagreed with what I assumed, have you?
I was wondering if one of the lawyers could come up with something that explained why a lawyer was even considering making this futile claim. But none of the known Languish lawyers have posted yet. :(
Arresting a Nazi pedophile doesn't seem that far-fetched.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 12, 2010, 11:16:56 AM
Bandwaggoner. :)
And besides, if any of the three of them (including the lawyer) think that this has even 1 chance in million of standing up in a court of law, they are morons. After all, none of this board's lawyers have come up with anything that would back their contention that the Pope is not a Head of State, despite my request in the original post, have they?
According to the press reports, Dawkins argument (on which he has obtained advice from a solicitor and a barrister) is that since the VC is not a member of the UN there is no such immunity. Whether that's correct or not I have no idea.
What I don't really get is what criminal law the Pope is supposed to have broken, however morally reprehnsible his actions have been. Aiding and abetting child abuse in another country perhaps?
Quote from: Agelastus on April 11, 2010, 07:49:34 PM
The last few days has made me think that someone has declared all of April to be "April Fool's Day" without telling me. I know the Vatican City only has observer status at the UN but given the number of countries it has diplomatic relations with I cannot comprehend how anybody would think this is worth wasting any time on.
Maybe one of the lawyers here can tell me what I am missing.
What you are missing is that under Article 27 of the Rome Statute, status as head or government or state neither immunizes a person from prosecution by the ICC nor does it prevent the exercise of ICC jurisdiction in signatory states (which include the UK).
Quote from: Gups on April 12, 2010, 12:23:45 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 12, 2010, 11:16:56 AM
Bandwaggoner. :)
And besides, if any of the three of them (including the lawyer) think that this has even 1 chance in million of standing up in a court of law, they are morons. After all, none of this board's lawyers have come up with anything that would back their contention that the Pope is not a Head of State, despite my request in the original post, have they?
According to the press reports, Dawkins argument (on which he has obtained advice from a solicitor and a barrister) is that since the VC is not a member of the UN there is no such immunity. Whether that's correct or not I have no idea.
What I don't really get is what criminal law the Pope is supposed to have broken, however morally reprehnsible his actions have been. Aiding and abetting child abuse in another country perhaps?
You don't have to have broken any real law to get shat on by the UK. See: libel tourism.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2010, 12:28:22 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 11, 2010, 07:49:34 PM
The last few days has made me think that someone has declared all of April to be "April Fool's Day" without telling me. I know the Vatican City only has observer status at the UN but given the number of countries it has diplomatic relations with I cannot comprehend how anybody would think this is worth wasting any time on.
Maybe one of the lawyers here can tell me what I am missing.
What you are missing is that under Article 27 of the Rome Statute, status as head or government or state neither immunizes a person from prosecution by the ICC nor does it prevent the exercise of ICC jurisdiction in signatory states (which include the UK).
According to Article 11 however, the ICC only has jurisdiction for offenses committed after the coming into effect of the Rome Statute. Not to mention that the ICC only has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes (as per Article 5).
Which brings us back to 'regular' criminal law. I think (and I'm no expert) that the UN is a red herring, and what matters is whether or not the individual country recognizes the Vatican as an independent state, or not.
Quote from: Gups on April 12, 2010, 12:23:45 PM
According to the press reports, Dawkins argument (on which he has obtained advice from a solicitor and a barrister) is that since the VC is not a member of the UN there is no such immunity. Whether that's correct or not I have no idea.
What I don't really get is what criminal law the Pope is supposed to have broken, however morally reprehnsible his actions have been. Aiding and abetting child abuse in another country perhaps?
QuoteArticle 7. Crimes Against Humanity. 1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack: . . . (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
. . . .
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack . . .
It won't be too hard to prove "a course of conduct involving the multiple comission of" rape "or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity" against a "civilian population."
It would be a lot tougher to prove that the course of conduct was pursuant to a policy of the Holy See to commit such attacks. Most likely, the worst that could be shown would be a policy of organizational indifference and aiding and abetting perpetrators after the fact. That is probably insufficient to establish the required element of a policy to commit the attacks, which presumably requires a more active role in facilitating and planning the commission of the offenses.
But this is still a new and evolving area of the law, so who really knows what standards could or might be applied? A very long shot but perhaps not impossible, depending on what the evidence might show.
Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2010, 12:37:17 PM
According to Article 11 however, the ICC only has jurisdiction for offenses committed after the coming into effect of the Rome Statute. Not to mention that the ICC only has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes (as per Article 5).
See above. I doubt this problem ceased in 2002.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2010, 12:38:18 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2010, 12:37:17 PM
According to Article 11 however, the ICC only has jurisdiction for offenses committed after the coming into effect of the Rome Statute. Not to mention that the ICC only has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes (as per Article 5).
See above. I doubt this problem ceased in 2002.
But the specific allegations against Benedict (should a Pope be called by his original name when discussing his pre-papal acts?) go well before 2002.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2010, 12:28:22 PM
What you are missing is that under Article 27 of the Rome Statute, status as head or government or state neither immunizes a person from prosecution by the ICC nor does it prevent the exercise of ICC jurisdiction in signatory states (which include the UK).
One understands why the USA is not signing up for this institution, then.
Quote2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.
Does this mean what it looks like it means? That the ICC is above even international law? That it is, in fact, the sole holder of a new "superlaw" authority that overrides any other source of law on the planet?
Edit: And while I've been reading up on that, the lawyers have arrived! :)
Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2010, 12:40:08 PM
But the specific allegations against Benedict (should a Pope be called by his original name when discussing his pre-papal acts?) go well before 2002.
My understanding is that his supervisory role continued after that date (and indeed to the present).
There would be an evidentiary question about whether pre -2002 conduct could be admitted to help explain the alleged scheme after that fact. Such evidence is often admitted in other jurisdictions in analogous cases.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 12, 2010, 12:41:19 PM
Does this mean what it looks like it means? That the ICC is above even international law? That it is, in fact, the sole holder of a new "superlaw" authority that overrides any other source of law on the planet?
The Rome Statute itself forms part of the corpus of international law. Basically it is saying that with respect to its specific areas of jurisdiction, it overrides otherwise background "common law" or customary rules of international law.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2010, 12:42:34 PM
My understanding is that his supervisory role continued after that date (and indeed to the present).
There would be an evidentiary question about whether pre -2002 conduct could be admitted to help explain the alleged scheme after that fact. Such evidence is often admitted in other jurisdictions in analogous cases.
So the leader of the Catholic Church is potentially criminally responsible for any sexual abuse by its members anywhere in the world due to "a policy of organizational indifference and aiding and abetting perpetrators after the fact."?
You're either trolling me, or just enjoying playing the devil's advocate...
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 08:52:30 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on April 12, 2010, 12:45:33 AM
Quote from: Josephus on April 11, 2010, 10:07:09 PM
Seriously?
No state would ever arrest the pope. Dawkins knows this.
Napoleon did.
Napoleon imprisoned two Popes but never arrested either one of them.
Seizing the three Legations, put them in the Cisalpine Republic, and then watch the hopelessly impotent Pope beg, quiver, and squeal to have them back was certainly entertaining to Napoleon, though.
And Napoleon's reply to the Pope after his self-coronation as Emperor that, as Protector of Cisalpine Republic (which he had himself created), he couldn't alienate part of its territory on his own authority, while his own troops were stationed as close to Rome as Civitavecchia, was so sly it's classic political comedy. :lol:
And it's not like the Pope didn't try everything to have them back. He had even found a "Pierre Bonaventure Bonaparte" to propose for canonization as a favor to Napoleon, which he refused.
BB - in case is wasn't already clear, I think it is a *very* weak case.
But the operative language of the Rome Statute is rather sweeping, and if read and applied broadly, could lead to some suprising results. In a sense, being a State entity or representative of one - usually a big advantage in international law - can have some rather nasty side effects when the ICC comes knocking.
Obviously the Vatican didn't specifically set out to commit sexual assaults on minors as a matter of policy. The question could be is here some point where protection of perpetrators and pressure to cover up wrongdoing leaks over from merely being an ugly form of organizational damage control to actual facilitation? Is an organizational mental state of extreme recklessness or indifference suffficient? As you know, these kinds of questions arise in the context of criminal cases under national laws, and sometimes are answered in a way that casts a wide net in terms of potential criminal liability.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 12, 2010, 12:11:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 11:45:38 AM
I think we've already established that there isn't any chance of this going to court. That clearly is not the point.
Then it has no point at all, since if they know it has no chance then they are just doing it for the publicity.
Well, for a moment lets ignore your assumption that if it doesn't have the point you demand that it have, then it can have "no point", and wonder why you would say it has "no point", then immediately follow that up with mentioning a point. Is not "for the publicity" a point, even if it is a likely strawman point that you made up yourself?
QuoteSince one can hardly argue that the long-running problem of children being abused by Catholic priests has not already received worldwide coverage, wasting their effort on this non-starter of a case is moronic.
More or less "moronic" than all the other people who comment or bring attention to the issue, like say, you? Is everyone who talks about Catholic priest abuse a moron, since it already gets plenty of attention?
Does this criteria extend to all subjects? Is it moronic for anyone to bring more attention to an issue they feel is important if in fact the issue is already getting what you consider to be an adequate amount of attention?
What about the reverse - it is moronic for the Pope, for example, to comment on this, since it already gets enough attention? Or is the rule against commenting on issues that get worldwide attention specific to one side or the other?
Quote
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 11:45:38 AM
Although I would contend that if you use the criteria of "I requested something, and nobody answered me, so I will assume whatever is convenient" to decide what is or is not a valid contention, YOU are the moron. :P
Saying I am assuming "whatever is convenient" is something of a misrepresentation given that I stated what I had assumed from my own knowledge in the opening post. Nor have you disagreed with what I assumed, have you?
I don't know - I forget what it is you assumed. What I do know is that "I asked for clarification, and nobody responded, therefore..." is bad thinking no matter what the topic.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 01:14:41 PM
More or less "moronic" than all the other people who comment or bring attention to the issue, like say, you? Is everyone who talks about Catholic priest abuse a moron, since it already gets plenty of attention?
Well we've had several threads on this already and most of them have been started by Marty. So a case can be made for that argument.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 01:14:41 PM
More or less "moronic" than all the other people who comment or bring attention to the issue, like say, you? Is everyone who talks about Catholic priest abuse a moron, since it already gets plenty of attention?
The only cost in my posting on the subject is to myself, a cost in time. What they are doing is going to cost a lot of people both time and money on what appears to be self-evidently a losing case. Even the forum lawyers are chipping in to say the argument is very weak. I'd consider that moronic.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 01:14:41 PM
Does this criteria extend to all subjects? Is it moronic for anyone to bring more attention to an issue they feel is important if in fact the issue is already getting what you consider to be an adequate amount of attention?
What about the reverse - it is moronic for the Pope, for example, to comment on this, since it already gets enough attention? Or is the rule against commenting on issues that get worldwide attention specific to one side or the other?
The Pope (or rather his spokesmen) have already commented on this. They have to respond when something like this is brought up, after all.
Anyway, why are you trying to extend a specific case termed "moronic" by myself into a general rule? "Moronic" is a value judgement. Your value judgement of what constitutes "moronic" may differ from mine - in fact, it is fairly obvious that it does. Trying to establish a general rule of "what does Agelastus call moronic" from something that is by nature only decidable on a case by case basis, as you seem to be doing, seems to be somewhat self-defeating.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 01:14:41 PM
I don't know - I forget what it is you assumed. What I do know is that "I asked for clarification, and nobody responded, therefore..." is bad thinking no matter what the topic.
Really? So one should always approach a subject with their mind completely made up, then? Asking for clarification strikes me as a very sensible approach to online debate, particularly concerning a subject one is not an expert in, and both Barrister and Minsky have obliged me handsomely. Their discussion has been most illuminating. Unfortunately, this discussion postdates the post you and I are discussing, which is a shame; fortunately, since they both seem to think the case is very weak, it doesn't invalidate my basic position - although I must admit to some surprise that their is even a possibility of this making a case, weak or not.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 12, 2010, 01:48:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 01:14:41 PM
More or less "moronic" than all the other people who comment or bring attention to the issue, like say, you? Is everyone who talks about Catholic priest abuse a moron, since it already gets plenty of attention?
The only cost in my posting on the subject is to myself, a cost in time. What they are doing is going to cost a lot of people both time and money on what appears to be self-evidently a losing case. Even the forum lawyers are chipping in to say the argument is very weak. I'd consider that moronic.
Again, it is only moronic if in fact their intent is to prosecute a winning case. Since we've established form about post #2 that that is almost certainly NOT their intent, repeating this ad naseum is a bit silly.
Quote
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 01:14:41 PM
Does this criteria extend to all subjects? Is it moronic for anyone to bring more attention to an issue they feel is important if in fact the issue is already getting what you consider to be an adequate amount of attention?
What about the reverse - it is moronic for the Pope, for example, to comment on this, since it already gets enough attention? Or is the rule against commenting on issues that get worldwide attention specific to one side or the other?
The Pope (or rather his spokesmen) have already commented on this. They have to respond when something like this is brought up, after all.
No they don't - they could say "We have decided that this gets enough attention, and we don't want to appear moronic by commenting more, so we are going to not comment!" Of course, that doesn't really make any sense since there isn't any connection between brining attention to something and your views on whether it gets enough attention already and the intelligence of the person involved.
Quote
Anyway, why are you trying to extend a specific case termed "moronic" by myself into a general rule?
Because I suspect that your claim that Dawkins is a moron is based on your opposition to his particular position, rather than any actual reason to think he is a moron, and I am pointing out that your evidence for his being a moron is inconsistent and makes no sense.
Quote
"Moronic" is a value judgement. Your value judgement of what constitutes "moronic" may differ from mine - in fact, it is fairly obvious that it does.
True, but on the other hand, it is a judgement that ought to be based on some kind of actual evidence. So far, your "evidence" that this is moronic is based entirely on your insistence that they are doing something that cannot work, therefore they must be morons. But that is completely circular, and is dependent on *your* insistence that they are trying to do something that cannot work, despite the fact that it is quite obvious that they are not trying to do what you insist they must be trying to do.
Really, if someone is doing something, and you think "Why, that is rather moronic!" then the first thing you should question is whether they are really trying to do whatever it is you think they are trying to do.
Unless, of course, your goal is not at all to understand what they are trying to do, but rather to crow about how stupid they are - then you should make it a point to NOT understand what they are trying to do, because then you cannot dance around in glee going on about what morons they are.
Quote
Trying to establish a general rule of "what does Agelastus call moronic" from something that is by nature only decidable on a case by case basis, as you seem to be doing, seems to be somewhat self-defeating.
Not at all, I think I have suceeded rather admirably.
Quote
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 01:14:41 PM
I don't know - I forget what it is you assumed. What I do know is that "I asked for clarification, and nobody responded, therefore..." is bad thinking no matter what the topic.
Really? So one should always approach a subject with their mind completely made up, then?
Wow, that is quite the jump there - how did you manage to construct THAT strawman?
Quote
Asking for clarification strikes me as a very sensible approach to online debate, particularly concerning a subject one is not an expert in, and both Barrister and Minsky have obliged me handsomely.
Uhhh, no, that isn't what I said at all, which of course you know.
I said assuming that nobody answering your question means that your assumed answer is correct is bad thinking. But I see we are in the part where you just pretend like you don't understand what I say, so this is going to become very uninteresting very quickly.
Quote
Their discussion has been most illuminating. Unfortunately, this discussion postdates the post you and I are discussing, which is a shame; fortunately, since they both seem to think the case is very weak, it doesn't invalidate my basic position - although I must admit to some surprise that their is even a possibility of this making a case, weak or not.
They have already succeeded in doing exactly what they set out to do, which is get people to talk about the role of the Pope in covering up a bunch of kiddie rape. Nothing more or less. Well, I guess they've drawn some attention to themselves as well, which is certainly not at all unwelcome.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2010, 05:11:15 AM
It's like me saying I have less respect for you than for dead maggots.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4gifs.com%2Fgallery%2Fd%2F33671-1%2FRULookin4TroubleGoose.jpg&hash=61b7705051e7f3c11a76c03262e056860b60b5d0)
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 12:10:45 PM
Given that Britain recognized the Holy See and its Head of Government, the Pope, in 1982, I dare say you are correct (and that Agelastus could actually have looked this up with a little effort, rather than merely assuming that the board's lawyers were his to command), I think you are correct that this has no chance to go to court.
Missed your post first time through, due to how close in time it was posted to one of mine. Just came across it as I was reviewing the thread.
An amusing point is that if you type "British Recognition" into google, it tries to finish that with only two suggestions - "of American Independence" and "of the Confederacy". :lol:
And the second point is that looking up Britain's recognition of the Vatican (which I did, in fact, know about) has no bearing on the information I requested of our lawyer brethren. I didn't think I explicitly had to include Britain in the term "number of countries it has diplomatic relations with" in my opening post.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 02:02:36 PM
Again, it is only moronic if in fact their intent is to prosecute a winning case. Since we've established form about post #2 that that is almost certainly NOT their intent, repeating this ad naseum is a bit silly.
We've established that the majority of Languish's considered opinion is that they cannot be serious; we have not confirmed that that is their intent as they have not confirmed or denied it.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 02:02:36 PM
No they don't - they could say "We have decided that this gets enough attention, and we don't want to appear moronic by commenting more, so we are going to not comment!" Of course, that doesn't really make any sense since there isn't any connection between brining attention to something and your views on whether it gets enough attention already and the intelligence of the person involved.
???
Well, on the serious side, silence by the church on any aspect of the child abuse scandal leads to squeals of "cover up" or implications that they are guilty but won't admit it. The Church has to respond to anything regarding child abuse these days, no matter how stupid the event.
In regard to your artificial construction (which is the best term I can come up with for that pair of sentences) all I can say is that I fail to see the lack of interconnectivity between the parts of your second sentence. All three seem to revolve around a person's opinion, at least, as you have written them. Am I supposed to develop an artificial tripolar disorder to keep them separate?
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 02:02:36 PMBecause I suspect that your claim that Dawkins is a moron is based on your opposition to his particular position, rather than any actual reason to think he is a moron, and I am pointing out that your evidence for his being a moron is inconsistent and makes no sense.
An otherwise intelligent individual is quite capable of making a stupid action; am I thus forbidden to call the action moronic? And, in this case, wasteful?
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 02:02:36 PM
True, but on the other hand, it is a judgement that ought to be based on some kind of actual evidence. So far, your "evidence" that this is moronic is based entirely on your insistence that they are doing something that cannot work, therefore they must be morons. But that is completely circular, and is dependent on *your* insistence that they are trying to do something that cannot work, despite the fact that it is quite obvious that they are not trying to do what you insist they must be trying to do.
Really, if someone is doing something, and you think "Why, that is rather moronic!" then the first thing you should question is whether they are really trying to do whatever it is you think they are trying to do.
Unless, of course, your goal is not at all to understand what they are trying to do, but rather to crow about how stupid they are - then you should make it a point to NOT understand what they are trying to do, because then you cannot dance around in glee going on about what morons they are.
So, did you read the title of my thread or not? If you did, I suggest you retract these paragraphs.
Your argument, or should I say implication, that they are solely doing this for the publicity is not completely convincing, by the way. There are simpler ways of publicising what has already been publicised.
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 02:02:36 PM
Not at all, I think I have suceeded rather admirably.
Opinions differ. :P
Quote from: Berkut on April 12, 2010, 02:02:36 PM
Wow, that is quite the jump there - how did you manage to construct THAT strawman?
---
Uhhh, no, that isn't what I said at all, which of course you know.
I said assuming that nobody answering your question means that your assumed answer is correct is bad thinking. But I see we are in the part where you just pretend like you don't understand what I say, so this is going to become very uninteresting very quickly.
Well, other than the fact your original phrase was that I could "assume whatever was convenient" as if I had no intellectual honesty whatsoever and had not already posted an opinion (with some reasons) at the start of the thread, and that it ignored the corroborating opinions of the laymen, including yourself, who had posted in the thread, I think I will concede here.
Upon reflection, I feel I took your your comment in extremis, and imputed a meaning to it that you did not intend or in any way say. I apologise.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 12, 2010, 04:43:54 PM
And the second point is that looking up Britain's recognition of the Vatican (which I did, in fact, know about) has no bearing on the information I requested of our lawyer brethren. I didn't think I explicitly had to include Britain in the term "number of countries it has diplomatic relations with" in my opening post.
Actually, you asked the lawyers "what [you were] missing." One of the things you are missing in the post is that, while Mark Stephens claimed that Mussolini's action had no standing in international law, Britain's formal recognition that the Pope is head of state of the Holy See certainly
does. Since this is a British court we are talking about (in part), this is something you were missing. You are missing it no longer.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 04:57:19 PM
Actually, you asked the lawyers "what [you were] missing." One of the things you are missing in the post is that, while Mark Stephens claimed that Mussolini's action had no standing in international law, Britain's formal recognition that the Pope is head of state of the Holy See certainly does. Since this is a British court we are talking about (in part), this is something you were missing. You are missing it no longer.
Actually, it doesn't. If Italy's recognition of the Vatican City by Mussolini as the legitimate head of government and his king Victor Emmanuel III as the legitimate head of state at the time has no standing in international law, then neither does Margaret Thatcher's and Elizabeth II's for the United Kingdom. If one legitimate government's recognition is not legitimate in international law, then neither can any other government's recognition be.
I consider Mark Stephen's argument to be completely fatuous precisely because of this vast number of recognitions by various legitimate national governments...which I mentioned, somewhat incorrectly, as "diplomatic relations" in my first post (I should have used the term recognitions, nor relations.) And although as Berkut pointed out using a negative as proof is not 100% appropriate, the fact that the board's lawyers discussed the issue based on whether or not the Pope could be held accountable as a head of state rather than discussing the legitimacy of the Vatican itself is telling, in my opinion.
Actually it's a shame really. The British have moved so far. They don't even burn the pope in effigy every year. Well mostly.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 12, 2010, 05:12:29 PM
Actually, it doesn't. If Italy's recognition of the Vatican City by Mussolini as the legitimate head of government and his king Victor Emmanuel III as the legitimate head of state at the time has no standing in international law, then neither does Margaret Thatcher's and Elizabeth II's for the United Kingdom. If one legitimate government's recognition is not legitimate in international law, then neither can any other government's recognition be.
:blink:
Whether or not the UK has recognized the Vatican City as a legitimate state has huge importance on how UK law deals with the matter...
Quote from: Agelastus on April 12, 2010, 05:12:29 PM
Actually, it doesn't. If Italy's recognition of the Vatican City by Mussolini as the legitimate head of government and his king Victor Emmanuel III as the legitimate head of state at the time has no standing in international law, then neither does Margaret Thatcher's and Elizabeth II's for the United Kingdom. If one legitimate government's recognition is not legitimate in international law, then neither can any other government's recognition be.
:huh:
The difference between a single state's recognition of another government and multiple state recognitions is
huge in international law and custom.
And are you seriously advancing the argument that a Queen's Justice (who is merely sitting in for the Queen, mind you) takes no heed of the Queen's decision to recognize a fellow sovereign when ruling on whether that sovereign has sovereign immunity? Since, technically, the Queen herself could intervene and make the ruling in any court, her justices are obliged to act as she would, where such is clear (and it gets no clearer than this).
Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2010, 05:59:20 PM
:blink:
Whether or not the UK has recognized the Vatican City as a legitimate state has huge importance on how UK law deals with the matter...
Yeah. I cannot imagine how Agelastus could have come to the conclusion that the Queen's decisions are of no import to her justices.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 05:59:49 PM
And are you seriously advancing the argument that a Queen's Justice (who is merely sitting in for the Queen, mind you) takes no heed of the Queen's decision to recognize a fellow sovereign when ruling on whether that sovereign has sovereign immunity? Since, technically, the Queen herself could intervene and make the ruling in any court, her justices are obliged to act as she would, where such is clear (and it gets no clearer than this).
This is just a side point, but I don't believe that has been the case for some time.
Remember that the Queen is frequently a party to court proceedings. A Justice is to act in the interests of justice, not the interests of the Queen. That being said the Justice is there to enforce the laws of Parliament, which are assented to by the Queen...
Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2010, 06:09:44 PM
This is just a side point, but I don't believe that has been the case for some time.
Remember that the Queen is frequently a party to court proceedings. A Justice is to act in the interests of justice, not the interests of the Queen. That being said the Justice is there to enforce the laws of Parliament, which are assented to by the Queen...
And the Queen never withholds assent. So Justices act on the will of parliament, even if the fiction is still that they act on the will of the Queen.
Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2010, 05:59:20 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 12, 2010, 05:12:29 PM
Actually, it doesn't. If Italy's recognition of the Vatican City by Mussolini as the legitimate head of government and his king Victor Emmanuel III as the legitimate head of state at the time has no standing in international law, then neither does Margaret Thatcher's and Elizabeth II's for the United Kingdom. If one legitimate government's recognition is not legitimate in international law, then neither can any other government's recognition be.
:blink:
Whether or not the UK has recognized the Vatican City as a legitimate state has huge importance on how UK law deals with the matter...
I just stated the logical corrollary of the case if the court was to decide that the recognition by Mussolini was illegitimate. His government was the first to recognise the Vatican, after all.
I also stated, which neither you nor Grumbler has quoted, that I believed the argument to be completely fatuous on the part of the lawyer in question precisely due to the multiple governments that have recognised the Vatican.
This is selective quoting at its worst, gentlemen.
Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2010, 06:09:44 PM
This is just a side point, but I don't believe that has been the case for some time.
It was certainly the case when I lived there some 25 years ago. The Queen was, in fact, about to be party to a suit (that is, she was personally going to be a party, not "the Crown") and every newspaper was avid to see what would happen, as the Justice couldn't act against her interests, being a mere representative whom she sent to take her place because she was too busy to administer all the justice herself.
I looked to see if there has been some legal reform to affect that, and could find nothing. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 doesn't address this, as far as I can tell.
QuoteRemember that the Queen is frequently a party to court proceedings. A Justice is to act in the interests of justice, not the interests of the Queen. That being said the Justice is there to enforce the laws of Parliament, which are assented to by the Queen...
Is British diplomatic recognition a matter of statute law, of common law? I would think statute, since parliament has to implement treaty obligations.
However, I agree that in practice the justices are supposed to serve justice, and that the sovereign in practice does not interfere (since the theory is that the Queen wants justice above all other things). In a case where the Queen isn't a party, but the justice must decide an an action to which the Queen has taken a public stance, can the justice find the Queen wrong?
Oh, and as a matter of niggles which may become significant later, the Queen is, I am 99% sure a part of Parliament. Parliament thus consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 12, 2010, 06:20:51 PM
I just stated the logical corrollary of the case if the court was to decide that the recognition by Mussolini was illegitimate. His government was the first to recognise the Vatican, after all.
I have no idea why you would believe this to be true. The first government to recognize has no special standing whatever. For a British court, what would count is whether the British sovereign had recognized a fellow-sovereign.
QuoteThis is selective quoting at its worst, gentlemen.
The rest of your statement had no logical connection to the first part of your statement. Selective quoting is necessary if we are not to add the length of every prior post to each new post. Thus, i would call this selective quoting at its finest.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 06:28:17 PM
Oh, and as a matter of niggles which may become significant later, the Queen is, I am 99% sure a part of Parliament. Parliament thus consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.
You sure about that? Why would the Queen be barred from proceedings then (except for the Speech from the Throne?
Quote from: Barrister on April 12, 2010, 06:42:24 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 06:28:17 PM
Oh, and as a matter of niggles which may become significant later, the Queen is, I am 99% sure a part of Parliament. Parliament thus consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.
You sure about that? Why would the Queen be barred from proceedings then (except for the Speech from the Throne?
What proceedings? The proceedings of the House of Commons? Because the sovereign is a member of the Parliament , not the Commons. Members of the Commons and Lords are also barred from the procedings, of the other chamber, are they not?
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 06:28:17 PM
Oh, and as a matter of niggles which may become significant later, the Queen is, I am 99% sure a part of Parliament. Parliament thus consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.
AFAIK, she is not. What you are looking for is Queen-in-Parliament, which consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The Parliament is a separate body from the Crown.
My understanding is that the UK Parliament consists of the two houses and the Queen in her legislative role i.e. Grumbler is right.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 13, 2010, 04:53:10 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 06:28:17 PM
Oh, and as a matter of niggles which may become significant later, the Queen is, I am 99% sure a part of Parliament. Parliament thus consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.
AFAIK, she is not. What you are looking for is Queen-in-Parliament, which consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The Parliament is a separate body from the Crown.
According to the Oxford University Press blurb for
What's Wrong with the British Constitution? http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/ComparativePolitics/GreatBritain/?view=usa&ci=9780199546954 (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/ComparativePolitics/GreatBritain/?view=usa&ci=9780199546954) which is just an early Google hit, she
is a member of Parliament (and this conforms to what my British professor told me at LSE):
QuoteThe position that still dominates the field of constitutional law is that of parliamentary sovereignty (or supremacy). According to this view, the supreme lawgiver in the United Kingdom is Parliament. Some writers in this tradition go on to insist that Parliament in turn derives its authority from the people, because the people elect Parliament. An obvious problem with this view is that Parliament, to a lawyer, comprises three houses: monarch, Lords, and Commons. The people elect only one of those three houses.
It's hard to define, because nobody wrote it down. You're all equally wrong.
Yep, I checked - I had thought the Glorious Revolution had ensured the separation of the bodies, but it still remains as was the case for the French the extension of the Curia Regis.
Quote from: grumbler on April 13, 2010, 06:01:18 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 13, 2010, 04:53:10 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 06:28:17 PM
Oh, and as a matter of niggles which may become significant later, the Queen is, I am 99% sure a part of Parliament. Parliament thus consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.
AFAIK, she is not. What you are looking for is Queen-in-Parliament, which consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The Parliament is a separate body from the Crown.
According to the Oxford University Press blurb for What's Wrong with the British Constitution? http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/ComparativePolitics/GreatBritain/?view=usa&ci=9780199546954 (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/ComparativePolitics/GreatBritain/?view=usa&ci=9780199546954) which is just an early Google hit, she is a member of Parliament (and this conforms to what my British professor told me at LSE):
QuoteThe position that still dominates the field of constitutional law is that of parliamentary sovereignty (or supremacy). According to this view, the supreme lawgiver in the United Kingdom is Parliament. Some writers in this tradition go on to insist that Parliament in turn derives its authority from the people, because the people elect Parliament. An obvious problem with this view is that Parliament, to a lawyer, comprises three houses: monarch, Lords, and Commons. The people elect only one of those three houses.
Correct.
If the Queen was not part of Parliament then there would be no need for royal assent to pass a bill into law.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2010, 10:25:09 AM
If the Queen was not part of Parliament then there would be no need for royal assent to pass a bill into law.
Historically, that was quite the reverse. It is the Parliament that was part of the body of the Crown, hence the Crown's contention that it could basically do whatever it wanted. The need for royal assent is simply derived from the historical construction that the King, or Queen, is considered the source of all justice.
I find it interesting how this fits more or less well with the practicalities, and ex post facto modern reconstructions.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 13, 2010, 10:25:09 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 13, 2010, 06:01:18 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 13, 2010, 04:53:10 AM
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 06:28:17 PM
Oh, and as a matter of niggles which may become significant later, the Queen is, I am 99% sure a part of Parliament. Parliament thus consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.
AFAIK, she is not. What you are looking for is Queen-in-Parliament, which consists of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The Parliament is a separate body from the Crown.
According to the Oxford University Press blurb for What's Wrong with the British Constitution? http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/ComparativePolitics/GreatBritain/?view=usa&ci=9780199546954 (http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/ComparativePolitics/GreatBritain/?view=usa&ci=9780199546954) which is just an early Google hit, she is a member of Parliament (and this conforms to what my British professor told me at LSE):
QuoteThe position that still dominates the field of constitutional law is that of parliamentary sovereignty (or supremacy). According to this view, the supreme lawgiver in the United Kingdom is Parliament. Some writers in this tradition go on to insist that Parliament in turn derives its authority from the people, because the people elect Parliament. An obvious problem with this view is that Parliament, to a lawyer, comprises three houses: monarch, Lords, and Commons. The people elect only one of those three houses.
Correct.
If the Queen was not part of Parliament then there would be no need for royal assent to pass a bill into law.
The President is not part of Congress, yet you need Presidential consent to pass something into law, absent over-riding his veto, of course.
Quote from: Berkut on April 13, 2010, 11:58:13 AM
The President is not part of Congress, yet you need Presidential consent to pass something into law, absent over-riding his veto, of course.
That is because such is part of the US Constitution. The basic tenet of British constitutional law is not checks and balances (as in the US), but rather "Parliament is sovereign." There is, for instance, no court to rule a law passed by parliament unconstitutional based on some higher law - the very concept is not present. The monarch is part of Parliament, though, and so part of the sovereign. If the monarch were not part of the sovereign, Parliament could not need royal assent and still be sovereign itself.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2010, 06:32:14 PM
I have no idea why you would believe this to be true. The first government to recognize has no special standing whatever. For a British court, what would count is whether the British sovereign had recognized a fellow-sovereign.
What is so difficult to understand about the premise that if it is successfully argued before a British Court that the original recognition of the Vatican by Italy was illegitimate that this would undermine the legal basis of everybody else's recognition of said institution, including Britain's?
QuoteThis is selective quoting at its worst, gentlemen.
The rest of your statement had no logical connection to the first part of your statement. Selective quoting is necessary if we are not to add the length of every prior post to each new post. Thus, i would call this selective quoting at its finest.
[/quote]
Since the rest of my statement expressed my opinion of the legitimacy and likely success of the argument that was being presented in the first part of my statement, you attempted to grossly misrepresent my position on the issue by ignoring the latter part of my post. This is, of course, a debating tactic of the kind you profess to abhor, and repeatedly accuse others of indulging in.
I would call that a failure to quote.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 13, 2010, 01:08:18 PM
What is so difficult to understand about the premise that if it is successfully argued before a British Court that the original recognition of the Vatican by Italy was illegitimate that this would undermine the legal basis of everybody else's recognition of said institution, including Britain's?
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that your mere unsupported assertion of something does not make it true? Your assertion does not pass the smell test nor the common-sense test - particularly when it comes to British courts ruling on the actions of their sovereign.
There is no basis under international law that I am aware of that even mentions the possibility that subsequent recognitions of a government can be tainted by the nature of governments recognizing faster than themselves. I would be glad to be corrected with citations, but in the absence of evidence that your difficult-to-understand surmise is true, I must assume it false.
QuoteSince the rest of my statement expressed my opinion of the legitimacy and likely success of the argument that was being presented in the first part of my statement, you attempted to grossly misrepresent my position on the issue by ignoring the latter part of my post. This is, of course, a debating tactic of the kind you profess to abhor, and repeatedly accuse others of indulging in.
Since you first assertion in your statement was logically and semantically separate and complete, I left out the second, unrelated, assertion as not relevant to my point.
Your position in your first paragraph is that the nature of the British recognition depends somehow on the nature of the Italian one.
Your position in the second paragraph is that Mr. Stephen's position is fatuous, which is unrelated to the nature of the Italian recognition. That this is not part of the same thought is clearly shown by you, as you put it in a
separate paragraph.
You cannot complain when I consider two separate thoughts, in separate paragraphs, to be separate.
Well, not without sounding whiny, anyway.