"Thank you thank you. Welcome all you foolish fools. Why the hell am I here? Is it time for Elfdart's Show Trial?"
"What? Fucksticks, it's someone else? Goddamnit!"
*sighs*
"Very well, begin the show trial for Reuben."
*flips through papers*
"It appears the accused has been accused of taking a weppage and attributing it to a medieval inquisitor, then snipping out the parts immediately under his quote that disprove his argument. LINK
"What's that Mr. Reuben? Your pants keep falling off? Not my problem."
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
I am feeling very ungenerous today. Get rid of him.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
It's too bad we can't remotely fry his computer and have him permanently cut off from the internet for good measure, but in the absence of that, ban the motherfucker.
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist
Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp
GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan
The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
I suggest we sentence the defendant to be a test subject in Kommissar Hipper's laboratory. I'm sure we can find a use for his thick skull; perhaps tank armor upgrades? If not, he would be a perfect target at the HAB or Eintek Weapons Ranges. Digression aside, the defendant did read the rules of the Coliseum, right?
Can we at least use some traditional interrogation methods on him first? It's always nicer if you have a confession. An coincidentally, he will tell the truth for the first time since joining here.
Okay, first of all allow me the chance to defend myself here. First off, t
here is the site in question.
The Cathars: Cathar Beliefs: Roman Catholic Propaganda: Cathar Views on Marriage
One of the claims of the Catholic Church was that Cathars rejected marriage. Since God had enjoined marriage, it must be sinful, and heretical to reject it.
There was some truth to the underlying charge. Cathar teaching was that procreation enslaved more angels in human bodies. It followed that procreation was bad. In Catholic thought one of the three explicit purposes of marriage was procreation (In Cannon Law people who could not procreate. Eunuchs for example were - and still are - disbarred from marrying). If procreation was undesirable for Cathars then marriage must be undesirable too. The reasoning held in some respects, but failed to accommodate nuances and qualifications.
The first is the Cathar concept of marriage, which was very different from our modern idea of marriage. For Cathars the word denoted not a ceremony joining a man and a woman, but a ceremony joining the entrapped human soul with its spiritual body in heaven. This was one of the functions of the Cathar ceremony called the Consolamentum, a ceremony preserved from the earliest days of Christianity, from which the various Orthodox Mysteries and Catholic Sacrament evolved over the centuries. This interpretation enabled Cathars to read and interpret the New Testament without discomfort, since references to marriage could be interpreted as referring to this "Spiritual Marriage."
[Jesus putting a wedding ring on the finger of his new bride] The Second qualification is that in Cathar thought the horror of sex and reproduction applied principally to Parfaits (men) and Parfaites (women). Ordinary believers or credentes were not expected to remain chaste, though it would be desirable if they did so. There appears to have been no stigma associated with marriage between ordinary believers and it is known that many believers did marry and raise families. In this, the practice of the Cathars again represented a preservation of the earliest Christian practices, where Virginity was the ideal and marriage was an acceptable second best (As Paul put it: "It is better to marry than to burn"). Virginity could be combined with a form of spiritual marriage. In different ways both Cathars and Catholics retained the idea. Virginity and chastity for Cathars was associated with their spiritual interpretation of marriage. Virginity and chastity for Catholics was associated with a different form of spiritual marriage. Monks were thought to marry the Church on their induction. Nuns were thought to marry Christ (In some orders they are known as "Brides of Christ". They still don wedding dresses, wedding crowns and even wedding rings on their inception).
Another ancient practice preserved in different ways was that of becoming celibate after having been married. This was extremely common practice - indeed standard practice - in the Early Christian Church, just as it remained standard among Cathars. It was for example very common for noblewomen with Cathar sympathies to marry and raise families and then, with their husband's consent, to begin an ascetic life culminating in taking the Consolamentum and so joining the ranks of the Parfaites. This too had a parallel in the Catholic Church, where it was common for men to abandon their wives in order to become monks or priests (Folque of Toulouse is just one of innumerable examples from the thirteenth century). Similarly, Catholic noblemen often packed their unwanted wives off to nunneries. In both cases the Church regarded the original marriage as dissolved so that the person could remarry either the female Church or the male Christ, according to gender. Related to this practice is the apparent anomaly that although a Catholic priest may not marry, the Church has no ban on married men becoming priests, as many have done and still do today.
From all the evidence, no Cathar seems to have been undully exercised by the fact that believers married and raised families. How else could those awaiting reincarnation ever be freed from their cycle of imprisonment?
Even so, the simplistic interpretation by which Cathars should abhor marriage seems to have some practical implications. For example it seems to have provided a strand of argument for propagandists. According to them all Cathars rejected marriage and were therefore heretics. The propagandists appear to have fudged the distiction between believers and Parfaits, and presented the rejection of marriage as an horrific heresy in itself. The audience were unlikely to know that virginity was such an ideal in the earliest Church, and the propagandists could hardly admit that the real Cathar practice of chastity represented represented exactly the ideal of chastity that monks aspired to or the ideal of celibacy that priests aspired to.
Anyone who believed the propaganda could deduce that Cathars would not marry and that anyone who was married could not therefore be a Cathar. Although the reasoning is flawed on two different counts, it does seem to have been articulated as an argument by people accused of being Cathars by the Inquisition. Here is a revealing appeal by one Jean Teisseire accused of heresy:
Listen to me! I am not a heretic, for I have a wife and I sleep with her. I have sons. I eat meat and I lie and swear, and I am a faithful Christian
The quotation is from Guillaume de Pélhisson, Chronicle, translated by Walter L Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France 1100-1250, University of California, Berkeley, 1974, pp 213-14.
It did not save him. Further enquiries were made. Teisseire was burned alive and his wife condemned to perpetual imprisonment
Now, note first of all that this is a pro Cathar source, I fully recognize this, but in order for me to be lying I need to be shown to have said something untrue.
Here is what I actually said:
Me:
I never said they were a suicide cult, you did, I said they encouraged suicide. i admit I may have implied it by not contradicting you, but they still factual encouraged suicide, and they thought all reproduction was to be discouraged.
Thanas:Source?
Me:Here you go.
Quote:
There was some truth to the underlying charge. Cathar teaching was that procreation enslaved more angels in human bodies. It followed that procreation was bad. In Catholic thought one of the three explicit purposes of marriage was procreation (In Cannon Law people who could not procreate. Eunuchs for example were - and still are - disbarred from marrying).
Guillaume de Pélhisson, Chronicle, translated by Walter L Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France 1100-1250, University of California, Berkeley, 1974, pp 213-14.
First, take a look at the fact that i said the cathars discouraged reproduction, not that they were intolerant to those who reproduced, even the site I quoted Iterated that point.
Cathar teaching was that procreation enslaved more angels in human bodies....It followed that procreation was bad
So, yes this does support exactly what I said. I never claimed the Cathars were "intolerant" to those that reproduced, which was the point the site made, and the reason i am on trial.
I do not understand how this is lying, and I would even go farther as to say that Thanas is lying more than I am, and he should be on trial here, not me. Case and point.
Thanas claimed all the works of the world were burned in the serapeum.
Did you just honestly claim the library at Alexandria did not contain works of science and was not a collection of "all the knowledge known to man"? Did you just honestly say that? You honestly have no idea how science worked back then, do you
We have already proven that 200,000 of the works were sent to Eygpt and cleopatra , and many others were indirectly burnt by Ceasar. So, Thanas's assertion that "all the knowledge in the world" was contained in the library is a LIE.
He has also constantly claimed that ALL of my so
aources were from Wikipeda, again, a bald faced lie, you can just go look at my sources. But e all know that Thanas is not going to be held to the same standar as me because he is a well liked individual, and also represents the popular opinion on this forum, where as I am an unpopular new commer. I find it ironic that people have claimed that I am trying to create a sense that I am being persecuted, wen that is exactly what you are doing with the "show" trial. In fact, I believ in all fairness Thanas should be on trial here especially considering his last post where is own sources contradicted his argument. Also in his ast post he claimed that the spanish government was not anti-clerical before the war and only stopped catholic special treatment, again, a lie, since the spanish government banned the Jesuits. You can see proof that anti-clericalism existed before the war here.
Thanas has lied about more than this, but i will not get into that now, but I think what I provided is clear proof of a double standard. If you continue to ban me I have no choice but to assume the whole of this forum is populated by bigoted anti-religious atheists, who are intolerant to all view that are not of their own. I am sure you do not want me to thin this, so, I would advice you to reconsider, or atleast show Thanas the same scrutiny. I am sure this will not happen since Thanas is considered the "invalible" athuority on all matter pertaining to history.
But, honestly do you really want to ban me? In the words of Maximus..
You go right ahead and keep telling yourself how put upon and oppressed you are here, asshole. You've been caught out in numerous lies, distortions and evasions, enough to establish that they are your preferred modus operandi, so I invite you to kindly go fuck yourself with a cactus.
In case you missed the thread title, this is a show trial, so anything you say can and will be used against you and anything you don't say can and will also be used against you.
You're getting exactly what you deserve and anything you care to say will actually be at our discretion.
The quality of mercy we have here is unparalleled, but the quantity of mercy you can expect to get looks to be starting from zero and going down from there.
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist
Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp
GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan
The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
I find it amusing that he tries to accuse Thanas of lying, by charges that would only work if you took what Thanas written as literary (hint Ruben: the symbol of " when used together "like this" shows something).
And no Ruben, you are not here to entertain us. You are here to debate us and what you did was made a flat-out lie by attributing a quote to someone who did not say what you claim he said.
And frankly, your debating style is purely that of semantic tacticizing rather than use actual logic, using distortion and misinterpretation to suit your opinion. You do this to a fine point, I must admit, but it does not change its nature. The fact that you were caught with with a flat-out lie and you are trying to defend it by saying that what you said is not untrue is enough credit of your dishonesty.
If you continue to ban me I have no choice but to assume the whole of this forum is populated by bigoted anti-religious atheists, who are intolerant to all view that are not of their own.
We have actual Christians here too, you moron. They have their own private usergroup/forum, they just don't have to distort physical reality so they can believe.
And really, what the hell should we care what some internet liar assumes? If anything, it shows something that is well-known to fundies: that they have a pathological need to be seen as oppressed. You are not banned for being Christian or for having a controversial viewpoint, but because you made a flat-out lie and in this forum, you get banned for that.
Or did you not bother to read the rules? Or the several warnings you were given by moderators (hint: the guys with green names)?
It appears he's only here to debate one topic, and he can't seem to do so honestly. I don't see why he deserves to stay. Boot him off the island, I say.
GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Ahh, SD.Net show-trials. As bloodthirsty as ever. Oh, what am I saying, may the wolves feast upon his entrails! Dishonest twit.
First of of all I did not claim this was a direct quote from the inquisitor, and not even Thanas thought I did.
Only the quotation is from Guillaume de Pélhisson. The rest is not.
But Ruben has repeatedly lied and distorted his sources, including the above
I never said the entire thing was from Guillaume de Pélhisson, I simply cited him as a source for the information, as did the website. If I had used him as a quote, I would have used quotation marks. The source I provided was a citation. Its the same thing as if I had done this.
There was some truth to the underlying charge. Cathar teaching was that procreation enslaved more angels in human bodies. It followed that procreation was bad. In Catholic thought one of the three explicit purposes of marriage was procreation (In Cannon Law people who could not procreate. Eunuchs for example were - and still are - disbarred from marrying).[1]
1.Guillaume de Pélhisson, Chronicle, translated by Walter L Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France 1100-1250, University of California, Berkeley, 1974, pp 213-14.
Now is that a quote? I think not. This simply shows that the argument is from the source. The book at the bottom is the bibliography. This is the same way any paper is done. You maybe could accuse me of plagarism, but it is certainly not lying, because the Inquisitor in question certainly did believe the above statement. I did not cite the website, because the rest of it was not relevant to the debate. I was only talking about reproduction, while the rest of the article is about marriage.
In case you missed the thread title, this is a show trial, so anything you say can and will be used against you and anything you don't say can and will also be used against you.
You're getting exactly what you deserve and anything you care to say will actually be at our discretion.
I have received nothing but insults since the moment I walked into this forum for no other reason than that I held an opinion contrary to the majority. I have been constantly called an idiot, a fool, a prick, and a liar by everyone on this forum, and have not do the same in return. Thanas levied the same insults almost the entire time in the forum. I have constantly been accused of lying the entire time, even though the same standards have not been applied to thous whom I was arguing against. I can very easily prove that others have lied (if we use the definition you are) during this debate, and were not held to the same standards. It is not my fault that contrary opinions seem to anger you. You have accused me of lying about everything, even when there was no foundation for it. The entire time throughout this I have almost never levied personal insults against anyone, so, if anything, I was more tolerant to this forum than it was to me. the only reason I was not banned immediatley was because I pissed enough people off that they wanted to keep me around to try and refute me, but that had nothing to do with tolerance. I have not been proven to "lie", even the above example is not a lie. Maybe a poorly cited source, but hardly a lie. I have never lied at all on this forum, the best you can claim is that I am wrong. Even the fact that I am being banned on something so trivial is indicitive of the fact the moderators want to ban me. I do not believe for one minute that this banning is not a resault of my religious opinions. If this were a debate on anything else, no one would even care. I would ask it to be shown where exactly I have lied on any of my sources besides this? Even though I didn't lie about the one in question.
Now I will prove that Thanas is indeed a liar (under the same parameters), and is indeed not being held to the same standard.
Thanas-The exception of catholic rights in the constitution was the abolishment of church privileges and not allowing them any kind of special treatment anymore.
The government banned the Jesuitis. The above statement is a lie. It also prohibited religious education of any kind.
The catholic church made the guy who did it a saint.
This is a lie, the Catholic church never made Thesophil a saint.
I sourced all my claims in the coliseum. You haven't sourced any of your claims.
In any case, wikipedia is worth nothing. You can try naming real sources.
This is a lie. I did cite wikipedia, but I also cited other sources. The above statement implies that wikipedia was my only source, which we can disprove by looking at my bibliography.
Yeah, and now I am asking you to back it up by real sources. Not wikipedia not youtube not some other BS site on the internet.
Yes, now he says that my sources were from BS sites on the internet and youtube. Which is true (except for the bs part), but this proves that he changed his argument.
To be honest with you I'm not sure why we are even in trial. I have not been prove to "lie" about anything. You can maybe say that I am "wrong", but that not a lying, and it is not a reason to ban someone. I don't know what my motivation to go on the internet and lie would be. Obviously, I actually believe what I am saying, so, you cannot say I am lying. After all, the definition of lying is:
A lie (also called prevarication, falsehood) is a type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement, especially with the intention to deceive others, often with the further intention to maintain a secret or reputation, protect someone's feelings or to avoid a punishment. To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one does not honestly believe to be true with the intention that a person will take it for the truth. A liar is a person who is lying, who has previously lied, or who tends by nature to lie repeatedly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Classification
So you see, under this definition I am not a liar, because I do hold everything I have said to be true, and I am not here to intentionally deceive people. I hold everything I say to be true, you could maybe argue that I am wrong, or that I am an idiot, but being wrong, or an idiot, is not against the rules of this forum, and is not grounds to ban such a person for life, and to do so is most certainly intolerance of said person. I would point out that everyone that has come to debate me has done so according to their own free will, and under no coersion from me. I have been respectful to the opinions of others and addressed their points, while in return I received insults and ridicule. If you do not like what I have to say, and think I am an idiot, then frankly ladies and gentlemen, simply stop reading my comments. I did not become a "one hit wonder-boy", as I have been called, over night, this was only possible because of those that agreed to debate with me. It is true that they agreed to "hear me out", but they only did so with constant insults, personal attacks, and a general disrespect for everything I had to say. I do not think that equates tolerance in the modern sense of the word. I have never intentionally misrepresented the truth, and I do not feel that I have at all, you may disagree, but that only proves that I am wrong, it still does not prove me liar.
I think it is also important to mention that I was not given the full "four strike rule".
1. Strike One. For a low-level offense, we will typically give you a warning. In some cases, we might give you an insulting title. Removal of said title can be handled by petitioning a Senator, if you can make a case for it.
2. Strike Two. If you ignore warnings (particularly repeated warnings), we will typically start removing privileges such as private messaging, editing, avatars, signatures, etc.
3. Strike Three. If the violations continue after warnings and privilege removal, or if the offense is deemed serious enough, we will escalate to a banning vote in the Senate. Bans may be either temporary or permanent, but most bans are permanent.
4. Insta-Ban. Certain serious violations can lead to instant summary banning. These include, but are not limited to: stalking, hacking, sock-puppeteering, ban evasion, and picture trolling.
I never received the second strike, as none of my privileges removed. You could possibly argue "insta-ban" but that's a stretch. I am hardly in the same category as a picture troll or a hacker.
Now according to your own rules I do not think I am being dishonest:
Be Honest. Around here, dishonesty is much worse than rudeness. We take a particularly dim view of anyone who pretends to be someone he's not, or who brags about false accomplishments.
This is a pretty vague definition, and I did not claim to be someone I was not, or brag about false accomplishments.
As for plagiarism:
No Plagiarism: We also take a very dim view on intellectual dishonesty. Do not, under any circumstances, claim another person's work as your own. This applies to reference materials, written work, music, photography, and art generated both outside and inside the board. If you plagiarize, you will get caught, and we will deal with you harshly.
Yes, what I did would probably fit this definition, but I did cite a source. Does that really constitute an "insta-ban" though?
On the rules of the off-topic thread, I did not violate any of these.
This is the OT Forum policy as of November 5, 2009, taking into account several changes in board software and rules.
1. Please read and follow all the general board policies outlined here.
2. If a thread is actually on-topic for a forum, it'll be moved to that forum.
3. No flamewars. Take it to PMs or the HoS.
4. No forced formatting/table stretching (read: large inline images, unbroken lines, etc.). It wreaks havoc with many people and it is annoying, so anyone who does it shall face the full wrath of the administrative staff.
5. Spoiler policy: If you want to post a spoiler in a non-spoiler thread, use the "spoiler" tag. For example, this:
Code:
Spoiler
THIS IS A SPOILER
looks like this:
[Reveal] Spoiler: Click "Reveal"
THIS IS A SPOILER
Any violations will be dealt with swiftly, and you will be warned.
6. Dress your links! Nothing is more annoying than a link so long that it runs off the edge of the screen. If you want to use a long URL, please do us all a favor and dress it like so:
Code: Link
7. Don't post spam, useless one-liners or any of that sort of crap. Violations will be split off and sent to the Bottom of the Barrel in the Hall of Shame. You do not want to be a regular contributor there.
8. Newbie introduction threads are now welcome in OT.
Any questions? Feel free to PM the forum moderators.
So, I would request that the court reduce the sentence to a "second strike".
In closing, I would say that while I have made some emotionally charged statements in this trial, I do not hate, or even dislike anyone on this forum. I think that maybe you are treating me a little bit overharshly, but I have actually enjoyed the debates we have been having, and I think that I have learned a lot during them, even though I do not concede my points. I would also stress that I am still a "newbie" and have only been in the thread for a month. I regret that we were not able to have these debates without people getting royally pissed off, myself included.
Being relatively humanitarian wimpy, I propose that he be sent to the mines, though I'm open to suggestions as to precisely which mines. Possibly salt mines? Uranium mines? Guano mines?
