Pope Endorses Kim Davis, 'stay Strong'.'thank You For Your Courage’

Try reading the articles posted in the links.

 

Edit: I was slow in typing. Aerianne already made a good reply to your bad analogy.

 

Reaching---reaching--reaching-----------------. I have some moral objections to many things that happen in this country and what this country does.

What certain people do with their genitals is none of my concern. No goats and no children is the exception. Davis, because she believes in that which cannot even be proved --is a fool of the first order. Do your fuckin' job or get another one. Or does the money---80 big ones-- take precedence?

 

Zzap, do not use the term red herring in reference to another of my posts.

I will not be insulted by you.

 

Here's more on the statement issued by the Pope and the Vatican. It seems like the Pope is getting pretty put out about this.

On Friday, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi released an extraordinary statement, personally approved by Pope Francis, debunking nearly everything that has been reported this week about a meeting between the pope and Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.



He was only being nice. And woe to those who take advantage of that kindness for their own purposes.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-real-story-behind-the-1269547693457462.html

 

From the Vatican, he is the entire statement.

The brief meeting between Mrs. Kim Davis and Pope Francis at the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, DC has continued to provoke comments and discussion. In order to contribute to an objective understanding of what transpired I am able to clarify the following points:
Pope Francis met with several dozen persons who had been invited by the Nunciature to greet him as he prepared to leave Washington for New York City. Such brief greetings occur on all papal visits and are due to the Pope’s characteristic kindness and availability. The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family.
The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects
.http://www.news.va/en/news/holy-see-press-office-issues-statement-on-popes-me

 

Fine I withdraw the argument.

However the intended topic is the pope endorsing conscientious objection which regard 'moral' decisions and kim davis right to 'exercise her religion' as explicitly 'stated in the constitution'.

Most responses I have seen so far are off topic from the OP as I intended it, and I have to continually sort out the fallacies only to argue over the fallacies rather than the OP subject matter.

I have posted several legal and religious questions that need to be answered by the opposition to pull this out of what people imagin law to be and what law really is and those questions have been simply ignored.

So arguments are not allowed either huh?

How about if rather than give extreme religious examples which are very easy to sort out I come up with some other example later, or are comparative 'moral' examples that do not necessarily have the word 'marriage' in the comparison considered off topic and not allowed?

 

The Vatican feels that Kim Davis exploited the Pope.

She's made his whole U.S. trip look bad.

I think that's pretty serious.

Vatican Says Kim Davis 'Exploited' the Pope

He also rejected Davis's claim that the pope spent 15 minutes speaking with Davis and her fourth husband, Joe. "There simply was not enough time" during the pope's six-day tour of the country, he said.
"I'm not sure that [the embassy] realized how significant it would be," Rosica told Reuters. "The visit was extraordinary ... so to allow this to kind of overshadow it would be very unfortunate. This is not the centerpiece of the papal visit. This is one small part of it, but it is a loaded centerpiece."
According to Chicago's WBBM TV, Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich also denied the meeting was requested, and a source inside the Vatican told the television station the pope was "blindsided." According Vatican officials, Davis met the pope as part of a receiving line of "dozens" of people, although Davis's attorney disputes that claim.http://www.advocate.com/religion/2015/10/02/vatican-disputes-kim-daviss-version-papal-meeting

 

I did however I know the rules of evidence and was not able to draw the same conclusions you did without much further evidence showing what was said is correct.

 

yes this is called damage control.
its the way the political side works now days.

this is a dangerous political game these people are playingas

as we can see from your link:

"Papal spokesman Federico Lombardi is disputing Liberty Counsel's version of the meeting between renegade antigay county clerk Kim Davis...."

clearly fair and balanced.

 

More about it here:

This wouldn't be the first time Liberty Counsel has been caught in a fabrication about international support for Davis. Earlier this week, leaders in the right-wing group were forced to admit that a photo they claimed showed 100,000 people praying for Davis in Peru was a fake after ThinkProgress blogger Zack Ford exposed the fraud. The photo was actually taken in May 2014 at a multi-day religious event. Staver now admits that no prayer rallies were held specifically for Davis as he previously claimed, saying some people prayed for her instead.http://www.advocate.com/religion/2015/10/02/vatican-disputes-kim-daviss-version-papal-meeting

 

This is how it goes at Hip Forums; it's part of our Forum Guidelines:

Any individual who chronically trolls, who regularly posts arguments, flames or personal attacks for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion will be banned.

 

This is getting pretty serious, Kim Davis. Now, you (your attorneys) are calling the Pope and The Vatican liars. Oh Jesus! I wouldn't want to be you right now.

"There was no line of people before, near, or around Kim Davis," Staver said in the press release. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-pope-liberty-counsel-dispute

 

am I to interpret that literally? Nothing I have posted that I am aware of falls into any of those categories except argument since the definition of argument does not make sense the way it is used in your rules:



argument noun

1. 
   The definition of an argument is a reason or reasons why you are for or against something.
   An example of an argument is the statement that the death penalty is wrong because innocent people could be killed.
   
2. 
   Argument is defined as a verbal exchange between people with opposite views.
   An example of an argument is a fight over whether the Yankees or the Mets are the better team.
   

argument

1. Archaic proof or evidence
2. a reason or reasons offered for or against something
3. the offering of such reasons; reasoning
4. a discussion in which there is disagreement; dispute; debate
5. a short statement of subject matter, or a brief synopsis of a plot; summary
6. Obs. a topic; theme
7. Math. independent variable

Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/argument#T8cKWh0vRaIwstGl.99



Anytime 2 people put up counter positions they are posting arguments according to the dictionary definition which is why it does not make sense to me? Since people cannot physically fight over the internet the word argument is very fuzzy, do you mean fight? argument to me has always been 2 opposing points on the table to be sorted out. Even then I have a hard time sorting out the difference between an argument or a fight on a discussion board if people do not resort to calling each other fuckers over the course of several posts or something like that.

Are we fairly close in understanding?

 

pretty tough if they have the paperwork to prove it.

 

If there is a serious discussion being had, by logical, rational adults, then we're good.

There is a fine line, left to moderator discretion, in determining when posts take on a trollish nature.

 

That is a tough job since it requires you to determine intent, understand the full spectrum of logical and argument fallacies and what is rational and not rational. I dont envy you. I have known posters to make crazy sounding statements and claims only to later drop bombshells and everyone that ridiculed them along the way had to eat crow. very difficult job to sort those things out imo.

 

No worries.

I actually enjoy keeping the atmosphere up to par at Hip Forums.

 

Or she can just use her fine tuned, super bullshit cutting abilities.

I do agree that the mod job is a tough job though.


Zzap, you should put your writing abilities, and imagination to some better task.

 

but thats not true, that is the media spin not what the vatican said.