FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Listen Up, Ya Mugs! - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Piazza (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Other Religions (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=20)
+--- Thread: Listen Up, Ya Mugs! (/showthread.php?tid=8214)

Pages: 1 2 3


Listen Up, Ya Mugs! - VoxClamantis - 08-20-2006

<P style="MARGIN: 0px" align=center><FONT size=4><B>Listen up, ya mugs!</B></FONT>

<P style="MARGIN: 0px" align=center>[Image: cagney.jpg]

 
<P style="MARGIN: 0px" align=center> 
OK, I am going to try opening this forum once again,
but you'd better read before posting. Or else:


This is not the place for Freepers, Little Green Footballers, "Fringe Watchers," members of the badly-named "Ratzinger Fan Club," Israel-worshipers, Americanists, or "You said 'conspiracy; you're a nutter!" types to spread their poison.
 
Nor is it the place for Nazis, the "there's a Jew under my bed" types, the tin foil hat crowd, "Christian Identity" people, or any kind of racist or violence-lover to spread theirs.
 
And this is the tricky part, folks, so listen up: nor will I withstand posts from people who might have a clue, but who also have no apparent ability to make their case or phrase things in such a way that they don't resemble any of the above.  See below:
<P style="MARGIN: 0px" align=center> 
 
<FONT size=4><B>RULES</B></FONT>
<P style="MARGIN: 0px" align=left> 
There will be no talk about "the Iluminati" and other such secret organizations in this thread. Why? Because they don't exist and don't cause problems? Not necessarily; people can talk about such things at other forums and come to their own conclusions. No, the reason is because they are buzzwords that automatically cause people to think "nutter" and immediately stop listening. If you don't know that much, if you don't have a clue about how, for ex., the phrase "the powers that be" reads much more effectively than "the masons!!!!!!!", then you don't have the subtlety and awareness to post in this forum.
 
There will be no talk of "the Jews" without qualification. But, you say, one can speak of "the Muslims" and "the Palestinians" and "the cheese-eating surrender monkeys." Yes, this is so, and the ridiculous unfairness of the situation is duly noted; I've written about it myself plenty of times. But deal with reality, folks. As above, if you can't "hear" how the phrase "the Jews" -- as opposed, say, to "the Jewish people as a group" or "Jewish leaders" -- is heard by the average person who's gotten a typical, "post-Shoah" education, then you lack the subtlety to post here. Given American leaders'  excruciatingly painful and obvious Israel-worship, anything said about Israeli-American politics will freak the typical American out. Same with any rightful criticism of Jewish leadership or the Jewish religion. But there is no need to be stupid about it. The point of communicating is, um, communicating -- getting a point across. You won't do that if the person turns off because you sound like a bigot to them (even if you're not). 
 
There is also the fact that the word "Jew" is used to refer not only to practitioners of a religion, but also to members of an ethnic group -- many of whom are not religious at all. When speaking of Jewish people, clarify exactly what you mean (practitioners of a religion or members of an ethnic group) and know that true racism of any sort is not allowed on this forum (moderators moderate with a sensible, "Steve Sailer" attitude toward the topic of "race").
 
Now, if you think that every bad little thing that happens is caused by conspirators, if you can't see that people simply acting out of their selfish interests can do a lot of harm without (necessarily) being "in" on some grand plan, you don't have the intellect to be posting here in this sub-forum. None of this is to deny that conspiracies exist; I believe many do -- quite big ones, in fact. One would have to be a fool to deny that conspiracies exist  given the definition of "conspiracy" (two or more people planning to commit a bad deed). But it is one thing to recognize seriously substantiated connections and pieces of a puzzle, and to speak of them with reason, restraint, and some sense of one's audience; it's another thing entirely to speculate out loud about very loosely connected things, or, for ex., to go on about masonry to people for whom the word "freemasons" means "those nice folks who do so much for the children." Further, it is just as silly to attribute first to "conspiracy" what is most likely simply sin. It is best to simply post news articles from legitimate sources and let people think for themselves without commentary.
 
Conversely, I will not allow defenders of Judaism to bash Catholics for Catholic theology, for our Gospels, or for our History. Cristicism of Judaism (as opposed to "the Jews"), the actions of Jewish leaders, AIPAC, the ADL, the government of Eretz Israel, etc., does not an "anti-semite" make, and we will not allow the loose throwing around of that word or words used in a similar manner ("Nazi," "fascist," "a David Duke," "racist," etc.). If a person does not believe that someone: is ontologically inferior, is not loved by God, is not called to Christ, is not to be treated with absolute respect, possesses certain negative or positive qualities, or should be harmed in any way simply because he has a Jewish parent, then that person is not an "anti-semite." Further, being aware of and concerned about these issues doesn't require one to be a Muslim, a supporter of Islam, unconcerned about Muslim immigration to Christian or formerly Christian nations, clueless about Muslim treatment of Christians, etc. The false dichotomies end here.
 
This forum will not become a debating society about what is in the Talmud. One can read the Talmud for oneself online. It says what it says, no need to hash it out here.

There will be no arguing about issues pertaining to "Holocaust revisionism" in itself. One can freely talk about how the Jewish experience during WWII is used politically, how there are great discrepancies in the treatment of their experience and the experiences of Christians in Communist regimes, how laws against revisionism are hypocritical and harm free speech, etc. -- but questions of fact pertaining to the Shoah itself are not welcome here. This is not the place to debate numbers or whether it's more proper to talk about "death camps" or "concentration camps."
 
There will be no bashing of the United States Marine Corps, the United States Air Force, the United States Army, or the United States Navy. You want to kvetch about how these armed forces are abused by American politicians? Fine. And I'll be with you all the way. But keep things straight, don't mess with our soldiers, sailors, fly-boys, and marines themselves, and do write about such matters as if you have some modicum of an idea that these men/women and the people who love them post here. Show some respect. (On the flip side, members of the armed forces shouldn't take personally criticism of how our military is used by government types).
 
<b>This forum is mostly for the posting of relevant news articles and thoughtful essays from non-controversial sources.</b> No links to sites the moderators think would be considered "unsavory" in some way to the average, typically-educated person who is new to studying these issues will be allowed.
 
I will NOT allow this forum and, by association, my site -- which I've spent years building -- to be besmirched because of bad people who want to twist Catholicism to fit their ugly, hateful view of the world, or because of serious Catholics who are simply careless with language and don't know how to express themselves with any sense of how it "plays in Peoria." And I won't allow this place to become uncomfortable for those who happen to know a thing or two about History, who know that modern Judaism is not the religion of the Old Testament, who are as concerned (or more concerned as co-religionists) about the sufferings of Catholics in History as they are about the sufferings of the Jewish people, who speak plainly and without rancor or hate about double standards, etc.
 
This forum will be closely watched and heavily moderated. Posts that have even a whiff of breaking any of the above rules will be deleted, and the poster who continues making such posts will be gone. If a post gets deleted, do NOT ask "Where'd my post go?" That is against the rules of the entire forum, and especially of this one.
 
And I may change this forum back to read-only if people get stupid.
<P style="MARGIN: 0px" align=left> 
<P style="MARGIN: 0px" align=center><FONT size=4><B>Get it? Got it? Good.</B></FONT>



Listen Up, Ya Mugs! - Historian - 01-21-2007

Quote:There will be no arguing about issues pertaining to "Holocaust revisionism" in itself.
 
Vox, could you please explain what exactly is entails? Does it mean I can't say this or that is true about War World II? Did I (ignorantly) violate this rule in the thread "Negationism soon a crime in Italy too"? Was that me you talking to when you said to read these rules? I'm very sorry if that's a yes, I did not mean to go against your rules. Forgive me please.



Listen Up, Ya Mugs! - VoxClamantis - 01-21-2007

Catholicmilkman Wrote:
Quote:There will be no arguing about issues pertaining to "Holocaust revisionism" in itself.

Vox, could you please explain what exactly is entails? Does it mean I can't say this or that is true about War World II?

 
I mean arguing about how many Jewish people were killed during WWII under the Third Reich; debating about whether the camps were concentration camps, work camps, or death camps; debating about whether people were thrown alive into ovens, etc. is off-limits. Why? Because  -- well, I certainly don't want to say "it doesn't matter," because any time a single innocent person is killed a great evil has occurred, and when more people are killed it's even worse -- but these sorts of questions of fact are "irrelevant" insofar as it all happened 65 years ago and determining those questions of fact is stuff for honest historians with access to primary sources, not people who are reliant on secondary and tertiary sources and on propaganda on all sides.

Further, there is nothing to gain in debating it, and everything to lose. Was it 3 million? 4 million? 5 million? 5.5 million? 6 million? How to prove anything either way? And "so what" insofar as the events in question are long gone and, pray God, will never happen again?
 
What is to gain by proving such things either way? That someone somewhere propagandized? Lied? Is bigoted against Christians or Jews? Liars and propagandists and bigots abound everywhere. So what else is new?
 
And what is there to lose? Having this site and this forum bunched in with nutters or alleged "nutters" and such, risking imprisonment if European-style laws were to come to the U.S. -- and all for no gain. It just doesn't matter insofar as these things are in the past and there is nothing anyone can do to change any of it.

You want to debate how present-day laws in Europe are hypocritical and run counter to the otherwise popular goals of free speech? How they ignore Christian suffering? How crazy it is that one can deny the very Historicity of Jesus or be a "Civil War Denier" or "Boston Tea Party Denier" or an "Armenian Genocide Denier" (such people usually being considered merely loopy, not criminal) -- yet is not allowed to "deny the Holocaust" (even though "denying the Holocaust" is a phrase used to refer not to "denying the Holocaust" at all, but denying certain aspects of it)? How the events of the Shoah are exploited to keep people from criticizing Israeli politics or the actions of AIPAC or the ADL, etc.? You want to argue that it is important to have a Holocaust Museum in every city of the world "lest we forget" or that other groups are being slighted by too much of a focus on one group's sufferings? Fine. THOSE things are timely, relevant, and have a pay-off.

Quote:Did I (ignorantly) violate this rule in the thread "Negationism soon a crime in Italy too"? Was that me you talking to when you said to read these rules? I'm very sorry if that's a yes, I did not mean to go against your rules. Forgive me please.

 
S'all good, Milkman! No worries Smile I wasn't directing my comments to anyone in particular; I was just reminding everyone of the rules so things wouldn't get out of hand.


Listen Up, Ya Mugs! - regius_cruor - 02-20-2009

after reading the rules i feel really stupid ...i think i'll better read and don't post Tip o' the hat


Listen Up, Ya Mugs! - Munda_cor_meum - 02-20-2009

regius_cruor Wrote:after reading the rules i feel really stupid ...i think i'll better read and don't post Tip o' the hat

I think I'll follow your lead. lol  [Image: afraidsmiley.gif]



Re: Listen Up, Ya Mugs! - MitOS - 08-04-2009

VoxClamantis Wrote: 
Now, if you think that every bad little thing that happens is caused by conspirators, if you can't see that people simply acting out of their selfish interests can do a lot of harm without (necessarily) being "in" on some grand plan, you don't have the intellect to be posting here in this sub-forum. None of this is to deny that conspiracies exist; I believe many do -- quite big ones, in fact. One would have to be a fool to deny that conspiracies exist  given the definition of "conspiracy" (two or more people planning to commit a bad deed). But it is one thing to recognize seriously substantiated connections and pieces of a puzzle, and to speak of them with reason, restraint, and some sense of one's audience; it's another thing entirely to speculate out loud about very loosely connected things, or, for ex., to go on about masonry to people for whom the word "freemasons" means "those nice folks who do so much for the children." Further, it is just as silly to attribute first to "conspiracy" what is most likely simply sin. It is best to simply post news articles from legitimate sources and let people think for themselves without commentary.
 

In medicine they have a saying:

When you hear sound of hooves think horses not Zebras

Frankly I suspect too many people are looking toward conspiracies for entertainment value.  Adolescent minds telling each other ghost stories around the campfire then crying themselves to sleep hiding under the bed.  I am reminded of a so called Catholic woman who started to tell me about Brown's book The Di Vinci Code.  She looked almost giggle in her pseudo scandalized eyes as she told me it was true.

I rolled my eyes knowing it was worthless telling her the writer was a common ordinary $$$ seeking hound dog looking for a buck and willing to say anything that will cause a scandal to raise interest and sell more books.  I classify much of what Pat Buchanan does in much the same light (not the same league but much the same type)  It seems saying something to shock the public, like the British caused the Holocaust, or the Church is suppressing information that Christ had children, is a sure money maker these days.

Now that I scandalized the PB Fan club I will duck the incoming. Entertained and Safe

I knew that other thread was getting to you.  Just chalk up this post as my twisted sense of humor and don't let they get to you.

It is hard for website owners to find a balance and even harder herding cats.
Keyboard Warrior Three Stooges Kitty Cat Bambino Duel Titanic Drowning Beat Up Bonfire Cheerleader Sick Chainsaw Censored Rolling Pin Laughing Fool Beating a dead horse Hopping Mad Blah, blah, blah Read the rules! Point and Laff Truce! Puke Jabs Grandma



Re: Listen Up, Ya Mugs! - stvincentferrer - 08-05-2009

After reading all those rules and clarifications the only thing I take away from it all is that "Vox is frightened to death of the Jews." I don't blame her. Christ was too. A good argument in favor of having a low view of the Jewish people is the amount of pressure placed on us to have a high opinion of them.

I still haven't figured out how someone who doesn't like Jewish people is an anti-Semite.


Re: Listen Up, Ya Mugs! - Historian - 08-05-2009

What you should take away from it is the sad facts of the times we live in restrict us from saying things that might be perceived as hateful even if they are not.

Saying 300,000 instead of 6,000,000 is causing a Catholic bishop to face possible jail time and got him kicked out of and banned from several countries.  By no stretch of the imagination is this objectively "hateful" whether it is true or false, malicious, stupid, imprudent or any combination thereof.

By the angry responses we get just for saying "Talmudic Judaism is different than the OT Sacrificial Judaism" - which is an objective fact - it should be clear that in order to discuss things prudence must be used, and we must also be very clear about our terms.

Also, and morally more important and our duty before Christ, it is a question of fairness and honesty.  Saying "the Jews" when we mean Abe Foxman and his ilk isn't fair to Moishe Morgenstern (i.e., the Jewish version of John Smith) who gets up and works 8-10 hours a day to support his family, gets screwed by the IRS, and tries to be a decent person like the rest of us.  Moishe is or will be a victim of the backlash against Foxman's rhetoric because of guilt-by-association in the minds of people who are not fair or honest.

In any case, while Jewish-Catholic relations are important, it's not the focus of the forum - Traditional Catholicism is.  It's not a hill worth dying on like the TLM is; at least not to me.  So, follow the rules or the subforum will get locked.


Re: Listen Up, Ya Mugs! - alaric - 08-06-2009

(08-05-2009, 05:56 AM)stvincentferrer Wrote: After reading all those rules and clarifications the only thing I take away from it all is that "Vox is frightened to death of the Jews." I don't blame her. Christ was too. A good argument in favor of having a low view of the Jewish people is the amount of pressure placed on us to have a high opinion of them.

I still haven't figured out how someone who doesn't like Jewish people is an anti-Semite.
Neither have the Palestinians...... Sneaky


Re: Listen Up, Ya Mugs! - MitOS - 08-07-2009

(08-06-2009, 09:45 AM)alaric Wrote:
(08-05-2009, 05:56 AM)stvincentferrer Wrote: After reading all those rules and clarifications the only thing I take away from it all is that "Vox is frightened to death of the Jews." I don't blame her. Christ was too. A good argument in favor of having a low view of the Jewish people is the amount of pressure placed on us to have a high opinion of them.

I still haven't figured out how someone who doesn't like Jewish people is an anti-Semite.
Neither have the Palestinians...... Sneaky

Word games with the language. It is a common attempt to justify behavior that they can not justify.  They would prefer to divert attention away so they change the subject into something irrelevant.  Basically manipulation of the debate. 

You do not have control over language any more than Daniel Webster.  It has come into popular use as a reference to the Jews.  Language does not always follow logic and it is not subject to pseudo-ivory tower deep thinking.  It has been dealt with by the Popes, who used this word and its meaning applied to the Jews.  A pretend academic discussion is as useful as arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.  Neither have anything to do with the topic but it often diverts the debate away from something the writer finds a little uncomfortable.    It does not always work; sometimes someone notices it is a form of manipulation, (no disrespect to Palestinians implied.)

Take up your objection up with the Popes (That would includes the pre Vatican II Pontiffs)