Topic: TG, let's say you got caught red handed molesting a young boy, and was in front of the judge
+Anonymous A — 6.7 years ago #54,063
How would you plead? Guilty or not guilty?
+Anonymous B — 6.7 years ago, 34 minutes later[T] [B] #571,938
TG runs from country to country in places where a 5 pound note bribe gets him off scot free.
It's what Pedo's like him do.
It's what Pedo's like him do.
+Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 26 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #571,939
@OP
First and foremost: Solus Deus me judicet.
But secondly, your scenario is insufficient to establish the proper legal process. In which country does this hypothetical situation of yours take place?
First and foremost: Solus Deus me judicet.
But secondly, your scenario is insufficient to establish the proper legal process. In which country does this hypothetical situation of yours take place?
+Anonymous D — 6.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #571,941
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Solus Deus me judicet.
Fuckign with the Bible again. Quality work for the Devil.
> Solus Deus me judicet.
Fuckign with the Bible again. Quality work for the Devil.
+Anonymous E — 6.7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #571,945
@571,939 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Solus Deus me judice
Matthew 7
Judging Others
7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
> Solus Deus me judice
Matthew 7
Judging Others
7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #571,948
·Syntax — 6.7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #571,951
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)Then why do you keep judging me and others here.
Oh wait you will simple change the text and plagiarized again.
That will be all for now. Putting you in a corner brings such nice results each time.
Good you take the bait so easily and also thanks for giving me a break from some really hard work and NOW to bill the client for time and it's direct deposit and only subject to audit so I will be fair and careful and charge all the law/contract allows which I do NOT always do - Not the most fun work at moment but it WILL B Later
This Ex Jew so loves Billing Client. There is a nice App for that.
+Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 57 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #571,952
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 51 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #571,955
@571,951 (Syntax)
> Then why do you keep judging me
Calling you "a pedophile ogler of pubescent eye candy" is a statement of fact, not a judgement. If I call Ted Bundy a murderer I am not necessarily judging him.
> Then why do you keep judging me
Calling you "a pedophile ogler of pubescent eye candy" is a statement of fact, not a judgement. If I call Ted Bundy a murderer I am not necessarily judging him.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 28 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #571,957
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 14 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #571,958
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 17 seconds later, 59 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #571,960
·Syntax — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #571,962
@571,955 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
And your proof of said statement of fact?
Go on because with so called God at your back you Devil you - Put up or shut up - Not that I expect you2
Will look for reply in a few hours cause have one reply2 do at MC AND then open an App to bill client and then the Gym and then some quality time for a beer with friends
And your proof of said statement of fact?
Go on because with so called God at your back you Devil you - Put up or shut up - Not that I expect you2
Will look for reply in a few hours cause have one reply2 do at MC AND then open an App to bill client and then the Gym and then some quality time for a beer with friends
(Edited 1 week later by a moderator.)
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #571,965
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)lol pedofilth
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #571,967
·Anonymous A (OP) — 6.7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #571,969
@571,939 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> First and foremost: Solus Deus me judicet.
>
> But secondly, your scenario is insufficient to establish the proper legal process. In which country does this hypothetical situation of yours take place?
Doesn't matter what country. Every court in the world goes through the guilty/not guilty thing.
Unless it's a Catholic church court, then you're not guilty, no matter how guilty you are.
So how would you plead? Guilty or not?
> First and foremost: Solus Deus me judicet.
>
> But secondly, your scenario is insufficient to establish the proper legal process. In which country does this hypothetical situation of yours take place?
Doesn't matter what country. Every court in the world goes through the guilty/not guilty thing.
Unless it's a Catholic church court, then you're not guilty, no matter how guilty you are.
So how would you plead? Guilty or not?
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #571,971
@previous (A)
> Doesn't matter what country. Every court in the world goes through the guilty/not guilty thing.
No it doesn't.
> Unless it's a Catholic church court
Ecclesiastical courts would not have jurisdiction in the crime you're alleging.
> So how would you plead? Guilty or not?
I'll ask again: in which country is this hypothetical scenario of yours taking place?
> Doesn't matter what country. Every court in the world goes through the guilty/not guilty thing.
No it doesn't.
> Unless it's a Catholic church court
Ecclesiastical courts would not have jurisdiction in the crime you're alleging.
> So how would you plead? Guilty or not?
I'll ask again: in which country is this hypothetical scenario of yours taking place?
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[T] [B] #571,974
+Anonymous G — 6.7 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #572,004
Never plead guilty
+Anonymous H — 6.7 years ago, 3 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #572,019
·Anonymous G — 6.7 years ago, 4 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[T] [B] #572,033
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[T] [B] #572,045
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[T] [B] #572,047
@572,004 (G)
> Never plead guilty
This is why I'm waiting on OP's answer to which country his hypothetical scenario is taking place in. We need to know the structure of the legal process. In some countries there are instances where 'nolo contendere' may be the better plea, rather than the 'guilty' or 'not guilty' options OP is (foolishly?) limiting himself to. I can also think of various so-called "creative pleas" that could fit here, but again, not all countries and systems allow for "creative pleas".
Hopefully OP will return with more details about his hypothetical case because it's a very interesting field of study.
> Never plead guilty
This is why I'm waiting on OP's answer to which country his hypothetical scenario is taking place in. We need to know the structure of the legal process. In some countries there are instances where 'nolo contendere' may be the better plea, rather than the 'guilty' or 'not guilty' options OP is (foolishly?) limiting himself to. I can also think of various so-called "creative pleas" that could fit here, but again, not all countries and systems allow for "creative pleas".
Hopefully OP will return with more details about his hypothetical case because it's a very interesting field of study.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 53 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[T] [B] #572,049
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 42 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[T] [B] #572,051
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #572,217
Such a shame the OP abandoned this thread. It's almost like it didn't go the way he thought it would and swiftly realized he was massively out of his depth...
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 34 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,222
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,223
+Anonymous I — 6.7 years ago, 11 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,239
+Anonymous J — 6.7 years ago, 46 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,240
@572,217 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
You seem desperate for a reaction. Does this reply satisfy your needs?
You seem desperate for a reaction. Does this reply satisfy your needs?
+Anonymous K — 6.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,251
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,255
@572,240 (J)
> You seem amused that OP became mysteriously silent when he realized he was massively out of his depth
Indeed :)
> You seem amused that OP became mysteriously silent when he realized he was massively out of his depth
Indeed :)
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,258
+Anonymous L — 6.7 years ago, 39 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,259
@572,255 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
If you will permit me to take over from the OP, not that I have a care to persue the argument much beyond this point, let's say hypothetically it's in the UK. What then?
If you will permit me to take over from the OP, not that I have a care to persue the argument much beyond this point, let's say hypothetically it's in the UK. What then?
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,261
+Anonymous M — 6.7 years ago, 36 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,273
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> What's that big yellow stain on your cassock, father?
Out of touch with tc for over a month. Has someone posted a photo of you here?
> What's that big yellow stain on your cassock, father?
Out of touch with tc for over a month. Has someone posted a photo of you here?
·Anonymous J — 6.7 years ago, 5 hours later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,295
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,301
@572,259 (L)
> If you will permit me to take over from the OP
Well he does seem to have fallen mysteriously silent once he realized he was massively out of his depth, so...
> not that I have a care to persue the argument much beyond this point
Nothing says "I don't care about pursuing this" quite like asking if you can pursue it ;)
> let's say hypothetically it's in the UK. What then?
What then? I'd ask which country of the UK you're referring to, because although there's substantial overlap between the 3 legal jurisdictions of the UK (England and Wales together, Scotland, and Northern Ireland), there are also important and sometimes major differences.
I do hope you won't suddenly fall mysteriously silent like your predecessor...
> If you will permit me to take over from the OP
Well he does seem to have fallen mysteriously silent once he realized he was massively out of his depth, so...
> not that I have a care to persue the argument much beyond this point
Nothing says "I don't care about pursuing this" quite like asking if you can pursue it ;)
> let's say hypothetically it's in the UK. What then?
What then? I'd ask which country of the UK you're referring to, because although there's substantial overlap between the 3 legal jurisdictions of the UK (England and Wales together, Scotland, and Northern Ireland), there are also important and sometimes major differences.
I do hope you won't suddenly fall mysteriously silent like your predecessor...
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,302
@572,273 (M)
Doubtful but I can't say for sure. I have images turned off. There was a picture of me on one of the chans a long time ago, I think a certain someone (won't say who but everyone knows him) still has it somewhere.
Doubtful but I can't say for sure. I have images turned off. There was a picture of me on one of the chans a long time ago, I think a certain someone (won't say who but everyone knows him) still has it somewhere.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,308
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 37 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,310
·Anonymous L — 6.7 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,315
@572,301 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> there are also important and sometimes major differences
Weeeell technically, but all three are bound by the same laws, all of which have been enacted by parliament and which have received royal ascent.
It really doesn't matter but if you insist on being this specific let's go with Northen Ireland, and let's say your case is being heard at Armagh Crown Court.
> I do hope you won't suddenly fall mysteriously silent like your predecessor...
Sorry to disappoint you but I'm afraid will no doubt fall silent quite soon, though not mysteriously. As I said I have no intention of eating somebody else's can of worms.
> there are also important and sometimes major differences
Weeeell technically, but all three are bound by the same laws, all of which have been enacted by parliament and which have received royal ascent.
It really doesn't matter but if you insist on being this specific let's go with Northen Ireland, and let's say your case is being heard at Armagh Crown Court.
> I do hope you won't suddenly fall mysteriously silent like your predecessor...
Sorry to disappoint you but I'm afraid will no doubt fall silent quite soon, though not mysteriously. As I said I have no intention of eating somebody else's can of worms.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,318
@previous (L)
> > there are also important and sometimes major differences
> Weeeell technically, but all three are bound by the same laws
They are literally not. We're off to a bad start here, you don't seem to have even the most basic knowledge of what you're talking about.
> all of which have been enacted by parliament and which have received royal ascent.
"Royal ascent" eh? A flying monarch agreed to this bizarre (and wrong) system of yours? Or did you mean to write "assent"? In any case this is completely irrelevant, the 3 jurisdictions are NOT "bound by the same laws". Shocking ignorance being displayed here, but anyway, let's push on regardless...
> It really doesn't matter but if you insist on being this specific let's go with Northen Ireland, and let's say your case is being heard at Armagh Crown Court.
Very well. Now lay out the charges.
> Sorry to disappoint you but I'm afraid will no doubt fall silent quite soon, though not mysteriously.
Yet another incoherent sentence.
> > there are also important and sometimes major differences
> Weeeell technically, but all three are bound by the same laws
They are literally not. We're off to a bad start here, you don't seem to have even the most basic knowledge of what you're talking about.
> all of which have been enacted by parliament and which have received royal ascent.
"Royal ascent" eh? A flying monarch agreed to this bizarre (and wrong) system of yours? Or did you mean to write "assent"? In any case this is completely irrelevant, the 3 jurisdictions are NOT "bound by the same laws". Shocking ignorance being displayed here, but anyway, let's push on regardless...
> It really doesn't matter but if you insist on being this specific let's go with Northen Ireland, and let's say your case is being heard at Armagh Crown Court.
Very well. Now lay out the charges.
> Sorry to disappoint you but I'm afraid will no doubt fall silent quite soon, though not mysteriously.
Yet another incoherent sentence.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,320
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 23 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,322
·Anonymous L — 6.7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,323
@572,318 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> They are literally not. We're off to a bad start here, you don't seem to have even the most basic knowledge of what you're talking about.
OK then, in order to progress, care to explain (briefly) how UK law works since you clearly know better? I don't mind admitting I don't know enough.
> Or did you mean to write "assent"?
Yes. Do you always get this excited about typos?
> In any case this is completely irrelevant, the 3 jurisdictions are NOT "bound by the same laws".
Fine. But I'll take a bet they have the same or extremely similar laws concerning child abuse.
> Shocking ignorance being displayed here
Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to act so shocked when you yourself evidently had to go searching hastily and copied/pasted the first thing you found about "There is a substantial overlap between these three legal systems, and the three legal jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, these being England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland." I'll give you some points at least for taking the trouble to shift a couple of words around so it wasn't completely verbatim.
> but anyway, let's push on regardless...
Yes. Let's.
> Very well. Now lay out the charges.
I'm not entirely sure what the OP had in mind precisely but for simplicity let's go with the topic headline.
> > Sorry to disappoint you but I'm afraid will no doubt fall silent quite soon, though not mysteriously.
> Yet another incoherent sentence.
So I made another typo and left out the word 'I'. Do you always get this pissy with your congregation for their slightest transgressions, father? Must be a riot taking confession with you.
I'm getting bored now. You can either answer the question or don't. I no longer care.
> They are literally not. We're off to a bad start here, you don't seem to have even the most basic knowledge of what you're talking about.
OK then, in order to progress, care to explain (briefly) how UK law works since you clearly know better? I don't mind admitting I don't know enough.
> Or did you mean to write "assent"?
Yes. Do you always get this excited about typos?
> In any case this is completely irrelevant, the 3 jurisdictions are NOT "bound by the same laws".
Fine. But I'll take a bet they have the same or extremely similar laws concerning child abuse.
> Shocking ignorance being displayed here
Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to act so shocked when you yourself evidently had to go searching hastily and copied/pasted the first thing you found about "There is a substantial overlap between these three legal systems, and the three legal jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, these being England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland." I'll give you some points at least for taking the trouble to shift a couple of words around so it wasn't completely verbatim.
> but anyway, let's push on regardless...
Yes. Let's.
> Very well. Now lay out the charges.
I'm not entirely sure what the OP had in mind precisely but for simplicity let's go with the topic headline.
> > Sorry to disappoint you but I'm afraid will no doubt fall silent quite soon, though not mysteriously.
> Yet another incoherent sentence.
So I made another typo and left out the word 'I'. Do you always get this pissy with your congregation for their slightest transgressions, father? Must be a riot taking confession with you.
I'm getting bored now. You can either answer the question or don't. I no longer care.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,324
@previous (L)
> > They are literally not. We're off to a bad start here, you don't seem to have even the most basic knowledge of what you're talking about.
> OK then, in order to progress, care to explain (briefly) how UK law works since you clearly know better? I don't mind admitting I don't know enough.
Certainly. Which aspect of UK law would you like me to explain to you?
> > Or did you mean to write "assent"?
> Yes.
Silly boy :)
> > In any case this is completely irrelevant, the 3 jurisdictions are NOT "bound by the same laws".
> Fine. But I'll take a bet they have the same or extremely similar laws concerning child abuse.
And you would lose your bet.
> > Very well. Now lay out the charges.
> I'm not entirely sure what the OP had in mind precisely but for simplicity let's go with the topic headline.
Yeah, "You have been caught red-handed molesting a child" isn't how a court process works my dear naive friend. The case would be thrown out if a judge opened like that. Now please lay out the charges so we can start to address this question that you wanted to be "permitted" to "take over".
> > > Sorry to disappoint you but I'm afraid will no doubt fall silent quite soon, though not mysteriously.
> > Yet another incoherent sentence.
> So I made another typo and left out the word 'I'.
Silly boy :)
> I'm getting bored now. You can either answer the question or don't. I no longer care.
Nothing says "I no longer care" like a detailed set of questions and answers :)
> > They are literally not. We're off to a bad start here, you don't seem to have even the most basic knowledge of what you're talking about.
> OK then, in order to progress, care to explain (briefly) how UK law works since you clearly know better? I don't mind admitting I don't know enough.
Certainly. Which aspect of UK law would you like me to explain to you?
> > Or did you mean to write "assent"?
> Yes.
Silly boy :)
> > In any case this is completely irrelevant, the 3 jurisdictions are NOT "bound by the same laws".
> Fine. But I'll take a bet they have the same or extremely similar laws concerning child abuse.
And you would lose your bet.
> > Very well. Now lay out the charges.
> I'm not entirely sure what the OP had in mind precisely but for simplicity let's go with the topic headline.
Yeah, "You have been caught red-handed molesting a child" isn't how a court process works my dear naive friend. The case would be thrown out if a judge opened like that. Now please lay out the charges so we can start to address this question that you wanted to be "permitted" to "take over".
> > > Sorry to disappoint you but I'm afraid will no doubt fall silent quite soon, though not mysteriously.
> > Yet another incoherent sentence.
> So I made another typo and left out the word 'I'.
Silly boy :)
> I'm getting bored now. You can either answer the question or don't. I no longer care.
Nothing says "I no longer care" like a detailed set of questions and answers :)
·Anonymous L — 6.7 years ago, 23 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,327
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Certainly. Which aspect of UK law would you like me to explain to you?
Criminal law, concerning child abuse (N. Ireland flavored).
> > Fine. But I'll take a bet they have the same or extremely similar laws concerning child abuse.
> And you would lose your bet.
This all has me wondering how and why a priest would be such an expert on the subtle differences in child abuse laws in the UK, but don't let me dissuade you from educating me.
> Silly boy :)
> Nothing says "I no longer care" like a detailed set of questions and answers :)
Most priests I know are kind, humble, generous and forgiving. You seem to be the complete antithesis of all four of those qualities; arrogant, sneering and one who delights in petty triumphs. Does your wife know about this nasty, pernicious aspect of your character?
> Yeah, "You have been caught red-handed molesting a child" isn't how a court process works my dear naive friend. The case would be thrown out if a judge opened like that. Now please lay out the charges so we can start to address this question that you wanted to be "permitted" to "take over".
If you are asking me to invent a detailed scenario where you've been caught fiddling with an altar boy or something along those lines, I'm afraid I can't provide that service.
Oh well, I guess that's the end of that. Thank you for your time, father. Have a blessed day.
> Certainly. Which aspect of UK law would you like me to explain to you?
Criminal law, concerning child abuse (N. Ireland flavored).
> > Fine. But I'll take a bet they have the same or extremely similar laws concerning child abuse.
> And you would lose your bet.
This all has me wondering how and why a priest would be such an expert on the subtle differences in child abuse laws in the UK, but don't let me dissuade you from educating me.
> Silly boy :)
> Nothing says "I no longer care" like a detailed set of questions and answers :)
Most priests I know are kind, humble, generous and forgiving. You seem to be the complete antithesis of all four of those qualities; arrogant, sneering and one who delights in petty triumphs. Does your wife know about this nasty, pernicious aspect of your character?
> Yeah, "You have been caught red-handed molesting a child" isn't how a court process works my dear naive friend. The case would be thrown out if a judge opened like that. Now please lay out the charges so we can start to address this question that you wanted to be "permitted" to "take over".
If you are asking me to invent a detailed scenario where you've been caught fiddling with an altar boy or something along those lines, I'm afraid I can't provide that service.
Oh well, I guess that's the end of that. Thank you for your time, father. Have a blessed day.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,328
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,331
·Anonymous B — 6.7 years ago, 6 hours later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,344
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Good to see that you came out as married and not a priest and incest your own son, against his will.
Good to see that you came out as married and not a priest and incest your own son, against his will.
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 6 hours later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,365
@572,327 (L)
> > Certainly. Which aspect of UK law would you like me to explain to you?
> Criminal law, concerning child abuse (N. Ireland flavored).
Certainly. Which particular form of "child abuse" are you interested in?
> > > Fine. But I'll take a bet they have the same or extremely similar laws concerning child abuse.
> > And you would lose your bet.
> This all has me wondering how and why a priest would have a basic general knowledge.
Silly boy :)
> > Nothing says "I no longer care" like a detailed set of questions and answers :)
> Most priests I know...
Oh, you're one of those people who happen to know many priests aren't you.
> > Yeah, "You have been caught red-handed molesting a child" isn't how a court process works my dear naive friend. The case would be thrown out if a judge opened like that. Now please lay out the charges so we can start to address this question that you wanted to be "permitted" to "take over".
> I'm afraid I can't do that
What a surprise.
> Oh well, I guess that's the end of that. Thank you for your time, father. Have a blessed day.
Sorry you decided to leave the discussion when you realized you are massively out of your depth. Nevertheless, I bless you my child!
> > Certainly. Which aspect of UK law would you like me to explain to you?
> Criminal law, concerning child abuse (N. Ireland flavored).
Certainly. Which particular form of "child abuse" are you interested in?
> > > Fine. But I'll take a bet they have the same or extremely similar laws concerning child abuse.
> > And you would lose your bet.
> This all has me wondering how and why a priest would have a basic general knowledge.
Silly boy :)
> > Nothing says "I no longer care" like a detailed set of questions and answers :)
> Most priests I know...
Oh, you're one of those people who happen to know many priests aren't you.
> > Yeah, "You have been caught red-handed molesting a child" isn't how a court process works my dear naive friend. The case would be thrown out if a judge opened like that. Now please lay out the charges so we can start to address this question that you wanted to be "permitted" to "take over".
> I'm afraid I can't do that
What a surprise.
> Oh well, I guess that's the end of that. Thank you for your time, father. Have a blessed day.
Sorry you decided to leave the discussion when you realized you are massively out of your depth. Nevertheless, I bless you my child!
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,366
@572,344 (B)
> Good to see that you came out as married
"Came out as married" lol :))
> and not a priest
I am a priest.
> Good to see that you came out as married
"Came out as married" lol :))
> and not a priest
I am a priest.
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,383
·Anonymous L — 6.7 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,393
@572,365 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Which particular form of "child abuse" are you interested in?
Oh you. Tee hee, tee hee. I'm not interested in any forms of child abuse, only in legal criminal procedures against perpetrators of it.
> basic general knowledge
is not the same as jurisprudence / knowledge about the subtle differences between the three main legal systems in the UK.
> happen to know many priests
I don't know many, no. Just the ones who taught me - I attended a Jesuit school - so that's 4, plus my uncle happens to be a priest, 5, and I know my local parish priest fairly well - 6. Actually, let me correct what I said: "Most All priests I know..."
Yes, I think "arrogant, sneering and one who delights in petty triumphs" hits the nail on the head vis à vis your character. I hate to think what kind of toxic relationship your marriage must be - what kind of gaslighting your poor wife must be subjected to constantly.
> > I'm afraid I can't do that
> What a disappointment
> Sorry you decided to leave the discussion as you said you might.
Mm, sorry about that.
> Nevertheless, I bless you my child!
shudder
> Which particular form of "child abuse" are you interested in?
Oh you. Tee hee, tee hee. I'm not interested in any forms of child abuse, only in legal criminal procedures against perpetrators of it.
> basic general knowledge
is not the same as jurisprudence / knowledge about the subtle differences between the three main legal systems in the UK.
> happen to know many priests
I don't know many, no. Just the ones who taught me - I attended a Jesuit school - so that's 4, plus my uncle happens to be a priest, 5, and I know my local parish priest fairly well - 6. Actually, let me correct what I said: "
Yes, I think "arrogant, sneering and one who delights in petty triumphs" hits the nail on the head vis à vis your character. I hate to think what kind of toxic relationship your marriage must be - what kind of gaslighting your poor wife must be subjected to constantly.
> > I'm afraid I can't do that
> What a disappointment
> Sorry you decided to leave the discussion as you said you might.
Mm, sorry about that.
> Nevertheless, I bless you my child!
shudder
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 1 day later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,516
@previous (L)
> > Which particular form of "child abuse" are you interested in?
> Oh you. Tee hee, tee hee. I'm not interested in any forms of child abuse, only in legal criminal procedures against perpetrators of it.
Yes I know, and I asked you which forms of child abuse you would like to know the criminal procedures for (fascinating insight into how your mind works though that you automatically started thinking about abusing children yourself).
> > basic general knowledge
> is not the same as jurisprudence / knowledge about the subtle differences between the three main legal systems in the UK.
The differences are not subtle.
> > happen to know many priests
> I don't know many, no. Just the ones who taught me - I attended a Jesuit school - so that's 4, plus my uncle happens to be a priest, 5, and I know my local parish priest fairly well - 6. Actually, let me correct what I said: "Most All priests I know..."
It's truly remarkable how many people here claim to have gone to "Jesuit school" :)) In any case thank you for your answer, it amused me. "I don't know many 1-legged albino concert pianists. Just 6".
> Yes, I think "arrogant, sneering and one who delights in petty triumphs" hits the nail on the head vis à vis your character.
I'm sorry you feel I have "triumphed" over you. I am here to educate you, not make you feel small, stupid and out of your depth, and I'm sorry you now feel that way.
> > > I'm afraid I can't do that
> > What a disappointment
> > Sorry you decided to leave the discussion as you said you might.
> Mm, sorry about that.
Don't feel bad, intellectual discussions are not for everyone. I'm sure you're a nice person and that's what counts.
Bless you my child!
> > Which particular form of "child abuse" are you interested in?
> Oh you. Tee hee, tee hee. I'm not interested in any forms of child abuse, only in legal criminal procedures against perpetrators of it.
Yes I know, and I asked you which forms of child abuse you would like to know the criminal procedures for (fascinating insight into how your mind works though that you automatically started thinking about abusing children yourself).
> > basic general knowledge
> is not the same as jurisprudence / knowledge about the subtle differences between the three main legal systems in the UK.
The differences are not subtle.
> > happen to know many priests
> I don't know many, no. Just the ones who taught me - I attended a Jesuit school - so that's 4, plus my uncle happens to be a priest, 5, and I know my local parish priest fairly well - 6. Actually, let me correct what I said: "Most All priests I know..."
It's truly remarkable how many people here claim to have gone to "Jesuit school" :)) In any case thank you for your answer, it amused me. "I don't know many 1-legged albino concert pianists. Just 6".
> Yes, I think "arrogant, sneering and one who delights in petty triumphs" hits the nail on the head vis à vis your character.
I'm sorry you feel I have "triumphed" over you. I am here to educate you, not make you feel small, stupid and out of your depth, and I'm sorry you now feel that way.
> > > I'm afraid I can't do that
> > What a disappointment
> > Sorry you decided to leave the discussion as you said you might.
> Mm, sorry about that.
Don't feel bad, intellectual discussions are not for everyone. I'm sure you're a nice person and that's what counts.
Bless you my child!
·Negi Springfield !aeNZeP7XP2 — 6.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,529
·Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U — 6.7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,531
·Anonymous L — 6.7 years ago, 11 hours later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,563
@572,516 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> fascinating insight into how your mind works
Is it? You are easily wowed. You asked me:
> Which particular form of "child abuse" are you interested in?
That's a pretty direct question, which says a great deal more about the way your mind works than mine.
> The differences are not subtle.
They are in many areas of common & civil law. From the NSPCC website: "Although the child protection systems are different in each nation, they are all based on similar principles."
> > I attended a Jesuit school
> It's truly remarkable
Is it? Perhaps it's only remarkable to somebody who has not taken into consideration that approx. 1/6th of world's population is Catholic. When you apply Bayesian inference, it's not so much remarkable as expected that you might see this same statistic popping up elsewhere.
Anyway, which is more likely: A Tinychan user who happened to attend a Catholic school and therefore knows some priests, or a Tinychan user who is a Catholic priest (and is married)?
> "I don't know many 1-legged albino concert pianists. Just 6".
Yeah, bit of a blundering logical fallacy there, father. I thought you said you were trying to educate me. Well, I suppose you are in a way: how to construct a straw man.
> I'm sorry you feel I have "triumphed" over you.
LOL
> I am here to educate you, not make you feel small, stupid and out of your depth, and I'm sorry you now feel that way.
If it makes you feel tall to imagine me as small and stupid, carry on.
> Don't feel bad, intellectual discussions are not for everyone.
Again, sneering and arrogant - supposing as always that you are the brightest tool in the shed. Pride is one of the seven deadly sins, my friend.
> I'm sure you're a nice person and that's what counts.
I'll pretend the sarcasm went over my head and say thank you, father.
> fascinating insight into how your mind works
Is it? You are easily wowed. You asked me:
> Which particular form of "child abuse" are you interested in?
That's a pretty direct question, which says a great deal more about the way your mind works than mine.
> The differences are not subtle.
They are in many areas of common & civil law. From the NSPCC website: "Although the child protection systems are different in each nation, they are all based on similar principles."
> > I attended a Jesuit school
> It's truly remarkable
Is it? Perhaps it's only remarkable to somebody who has not taken into consideration that approx. 1/6th of world's population is Catholic. When you apply Bayesian inference, it's not so much remarkable as expected that you might see this same statistic popping up elsewhere.
Anyway, which is more likely: A Tinychan user who happened to attend a Catholic school and therefore knows some priests, or a Tinychan user who is a Catholic priest (and is married)?
> "I don't know many 1-legged albino concert pianists. Just 6".
Yeah, bit of a blundering logical fallacy there, father. I thought you said you were trying to educate me. Well, I suppose you are in a way: how to construct a straw man.
> I'm sorry you feel I have "triumphed" over you.
LOL
> I am here to educate you, not make you feel small, stupid and out of your depth, and I'm sorry you now feel that way.
If it makes you feel tall to imagine me as small and stupid, carry on.
> Don't feel bad, intellectual discussions are not for everyone.
Again, sneering and arrogant - supposing as always that you are the brightest tool in the shed. Pride is one of the seven deadly sins, my friend.
> I'm sure you're a nice person and that's what counts.
I'll pretend the sarcasm went over my head and say thank you, father.
·Anonymous K — 6.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,565
·Anonymous L — 6.7 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,566
·Anonymous K — 6.7 years ago, 8 hours later, 6 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,592
@previous (L)
> > Cook My Own Breakfast
> Not me. I never namefag.
My mistake, I guess we have 2 separate posters who went to Jesuit school and write about "Bayesian inferences" in discussions with TG.
> > Cook My Own Breakfast
> Not me. I never namefag.
My mistake, I guess we have 2 separate posters who went to Jesuit school and write about "Bayesian inferences" in discussions with TG.
·Anonymous L — 6.7 years ago, 11 hours later, 6 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,608
@previous (K)
> My mistake, I guess we have 2 separate posters who went to Jesuit school and write about "Bayesian inferences" in discussions with TG.
I guess we do. It wouldn't be that big a stretch of the imagination. I didn't know CMOB knew about Bayes theory. Might be something to do with attending a Jesuit school and thus being well educated, but again if you apply Bayesian inference here, this kind of coincidence is more probable than improbable.
> My mistake, I guess we have 2 separate posters who went to Jesuit school and write about "Bayesian inferences" in discussions with TG.
I guess we do. It wouldn't be that big a stretch of the imagination. I didn't know CMOB knew about Bayes theory. Might be something to do with attending a Jesuit school and thus being well educated, but again if you apply Bayesian inference here, this kind of coincidence is more probable than improbable.
·Anonymous K — 6.7 years ago, 2 hours later, 6 days after the original post[T] [B] #572,611
@previous (L)
It's cool buddy, just a misunderstanding. CMOB used the exact same wording about "Bayesian inferences" making something "more probable than improbable" during an argument with TG that was exactly like this one, so I thought it might be you. Plus CMOB often posts anon and denies it when asked, even though it's obviously him. Anyway you've cleared up the confusion, thanks.
It's cool buddy, just a misunderstanding. CMOB used the exact same wording about "Bayesian inferences" making something "more probable than improbable" during an argument with TG that was exactly like this one, so I thought it might be you. Plus CMOB often posts anon and denies it when asked, even though it's obviously him. Anyway you've cleared up the confusion, thanks.
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.