I think that there's a framing problem here:
There is nothing wrong with other sites copying Wikipedia information (and possibly modifying it). The freedom for others to do so was part of the expectation that I (and many others, I would assert) had when we wrote or editted wikipedia articles.
If I or you or your mom copies Wikipedia, changes every proper name to be a link to a recipe for chocolate chip cookies, and then never tells google about it, and has no incoming links, no harm is done.
Framed this way, it becomes obvious that the problem is that google is giving the leach sites an overly high ranking. The issue is technological, not social, and does not scream out for a sociological / legal fix (using government to enforce laws against compilation, etc.). Google needs to fix a bug in their rankings algorithm, and/or developers need to make a plugin to Firefox, etc., that hide the undesired rankings when a google search is done.
My 2 cents.
Lenora wrote:
TJIC - I can explain some of the reaction... it does often occur in a religious discussion for someone who has never been involved... to come in, say to the blogger, "You're wrong (And going to hell) and I'm right..." and vanish in a puff of insults...
People just get sick of it. Wouldn't you?
Yes, I would. But I still think that most people can the tell the difference between a bunch of kids driving past at high speed and throwing eggs at a house, and someone walking up, saying "Hey, interesting conversation you're having here in the front yard; my point is X".
Nowhere in your posts did you note, "I'm a regular reader here..."
Agreed. I didn't think that folks were presumed unworthy to comment until being proven members of the tribe.
Sorry, we don't have perfect memories. If you have posted only once or twice before, it shouldn't be a surprise few people recalled your name
I wouldn't expect you to...but even with out a store of reputation capital, I think the original comment was pretty damn tame.
...it explains where the confusion comes from.
Noted.
Terry wrote:
There is a fair bit of presumption in it.(that our Hostess isn't Catholic, that she didn't understand the Doctrine
Well, I've already apologized for the first (although it wasn't out of willful ignorance; I've been reading the blog for a while, and hadn't seen any expression of Catholicism, and this particular thread started with a comparison of the Pope to a figure of evil) *AND* noted that the intent of my comment wasn't to insult, but to be self deprecating about how weird the doctrine of infallibility is.
[and I think TJIC has mis-read it when he says she thinks it applies to all the pope does.
TNH's exact words were "When you look at the history of the Papacy, 'infallible' is neither the first nor the twentieth adjective most likely to occur to you." It's possible that she meant "When you look at the list of doctrinal pronouncements...", but I don't think that's what she meant.
Perhaps I'm wrong.
he came in, from out of nowhere, so far as many of us could see, posted a reply...
I'll note that while most readers here may have no reason to know me, I was commenting to TNH's posts, and I *have* sent her email several times. Not that that is enough to make us best buddies or anything, but it's not as if my absolute first contact with her was the above comment.
...and then went to his site and posted a second reply, showing how shabbily he had been treated.
You've got the order of story wrong...and it makes a *lot* of difference.
1: TNH started the thread.
2: I commented here.
3: I posted the same text in my own blog, for my own readers, who do not read Making Light.
4: TNH came to my blog, called me "boyo", said that I had "egg on my face", stated that I did not "value genuine dialogue", called me a Pharisee, said that she knew that I had commented only to make myself happy at her expense, said that she knew what kind of person I was, and said that the members of "my group" are more arrogant than Satan.
5: So that no one at Making Light would miss the blood sport, TNH posted a link to her name-calling at my site
6: I came back to TNH's blog, and started my comment with the words "my mistake, sorry"
I did not post in my blog "showing how shabbily I had been treated".
That strikes me as offensive, offensive past rude.
Either you're misunderstanding the sequence of events, and calling something that did not happen "offensive past rude", or you're calling the actual sequence of events described here "offensive past rude". If the former: no problem. If the latter: I don't understand how you can get from point A to point B.
His defenses mitigate it, but don't absolve (I don't see real repentance, nor yet abjuration, but I digress)
Two mistakes I made were: (a) based on reading 18 months of her posts, thinking - with out thinking deeply about it - that TNH was not a Catholic, and (b) writing one sentence at my blog opaquely.
I've apologized for both of these.
If we're keeping track of repentance and abjuration stats, we should all check back at my comment thread from time to time to see if any of the name-calling there has been regretted or retracted.
His description of disemvowellment as deletion (which is an inference on my part, from things said after) is neither fair, nor accurate. Which also strikes me as offensive.
I've said that I had a post in this thread which was deleted.
It was.
Barring database corruption, static electricity in the server room, or something else that mysteriously removed my comment but but kept all the follow ups my statement is perfectly accurate.
So, when Teresa gets offended, I'm not all that bothered. It's her salon
TNH didn't uncork in her salon. She uncorked in mine.
Anyway.
I posted a comment in the first place in order to discuss TNH's views on papal infallibility.
I've already issued an invite to continue the dialogue
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006263.html#79885
TNH:
Care to put all the meta-debate to one side, and actually chat about the issue you originally posted about? To wit: does papal infallibility make any sense?
To get the ball rolling, I'll note that you posted four reasons why it struck you as nonsensical. I disagreed with three of them. Care to either point out why I'm wrong on one or more of my disagreements...or care to drive home the point about how you're right on the fourth?
The invite is still open to her.
...and to everyone else.
julia wrote:
TJIC,
a) You're misrepresenting your post, which was rather more condescending and dismissive than you're making it sound - not a great idea, because the folks here do follow links.
Julia,
The fact that people follow links isn't a new revelation to me. That's why I posted a link to Wikipedia in my original comment, and why I posted links in my second comment - I wanted to have a fair, informed discussion.
b) posting a response and waiting for an answer is conversation. Posting a response and immediately reposting it as your personal smackdown of a "knee-jerk anti-Benedict-16 rant" is posturing.
I posted it both in the comments to Making Light and to my own blog because
1) most of my friends - including the ones I debate theology with - read, my blog, and not Making Light, and I wanted them (my primary audience) to see my comment.
2) I wanted to preserve what I'd written, as I know that TNH deletes comments
With regards to your assertion that the post in my own blog was a "smackdown", it certainly wasn't intended as such. I again assert that it was intended to be polite and self-deprecating.
The only thing that I think could be remotely interpreted as less-than-nice was the intro comment I made in my blog that TNH's post was "knee-jerk". Call me crazy, but when she started her discussion of the new Pope by passing along a joke that the Pope looked like (or was comparable to; I'm not quite sure of the intent) the Star Wars Emperor, and then listed four objections to papal infallibility, three of which misunderstand Church teaching, yes, it seemed to me that TNH was indeed being a jerking a knee and ranting.
Looking over it now, I see that the comment "it contains a bunch of misunderstandings of papal infallibility" is preceded by "not surprisingly", which could be misinterpreted to mean "I'm not surprised that TNH got this wrong", when in fact what I meant was "I am not surprised at the correlation of an anti-Benedict post being correlated with a misunderstanding of papal infallibility".
So, if TNH or anyone else took that as me saying "of *course* I expected TNH to get this wrong", that wasn't at all what I intended, and I apologize for the sloppy writing.
c) If in fact you are Catholic, you should know better than to claim to know another's heart, unless you also think you're God.
I entirely agree that claiming to know another's heart is un-Christian.
First, could you point out where in the offending Making Light comment or where in the offending post in my blog I did this?
Second, would you argue that the same standard (that claiming to know another's heart is un-Christian) applies to TNH, who (I now know) is a Catholic, and responded to a polite message containing Wikipedia footnotes by asserting that I was a Pharisee, that the reason I posted was to make myself feel better at her expense, and that people like me were less humble than Satan?
I mean...somewhere in that laundry list of allegations, I think I see at least one or two places where TNH might - maybe - be claiming to know my heart...
Next - Greg,
I'm beginning to suspect that you and Teresa are attitude-incompatible.
Yes, I think TNH and I have different worldviews. No harm in that - I'm a Catholic anarcho-capitalist and my favorite debating partners / good friends include a Jewish communitarian centrist, a gay atheist, and an anti-political green hippy.
What I don't understand is TNH deciding that because I corrected her on a point of Catholic doctrine, that she now knows for a fact that I'm a big asshole who only posted a link to Wikipedia because I wanted to make her feel bad.
I've got no problem with TNH posting a Pope joke, and declaring that Papal Infallibility is the dumbest thing she's ever heard of. I understand the tenor of this blog, and I'm not dropping in to pass out Jack Chick comics and yell at the godless pagans. I was trying to make a polite comment *in the spirit of the venue*, and I just don't understand the vehemence that TNH uncorked.
FWIW, you lost me totally when you said "the most logical stance is agnosticism." But I don't think we really want to get into a comparison of the logic of agnosticism versus the logic of atheism here.
I wasn't trying to make the point that atheism was not the first place winner in the rationalism derby, so much as I was trying to demonstrate a bit of humility by acknowledging that Catholicism isn't the first place winner either.
Anyway, we both agree that "a comparison of the logic of agnosticism versus the logic of atheism" doesn't sound like fun right now.
Dena, Dave, thanks for your comments which did me the courtesy of taking my original comment in the spirit in which it was intended.
TNH:
Care to put all the meta-debate to one side, and actually chat about the issue you originally posted about? To wit: does papal infallibility make any sense?
To get the ball rolling, I'll note that you posted four reasons why it struck you as nonsensical. I disagreed with three of them. Care to either point out why I'm wrong on one or more of my disagreements...or care to drive home the point about how you're right on the fourth?
Ahem.
In the previous comment, the words
In conclusion:
1. You're not unique.
2. Please go away unless you can do better than that.
are not italicized, making them appear as if they are me speaking to TNH.
In fact, they're TNH's words to me, and they just didn't get formatted properly above.
Oops.
TNH posted.
I responded.
TNH rebutted
Non-Catholic? Try again, boyo.
OK, my mistake, sorry.
You wouldn't have nearly so much egg on your face if you'd paused to read some of my other posts, and the comment threads appurtenant thereto
Well, I've been reading your blog regularly for about 18 months. I admit that I haven't been reading all of the comment threads. I'd assumed from a lot of things that you were a non-Catholic.
Again, my mistake; sorry.
By the way, the first part of my comment, where I assumed that you weren't a Catholic, was certainly not trying to insult anyone - indeed, I was trying to be a bit self-deprecating and trying to say "yeah, the whole idea of papal infallibility doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and I don't *expect* that folks would accept it".
I thought that the part where I said "I'm a Catholic, but I acknowledge that this stance rests on faith, not on logic - the most logical stance is agnosticism, and in the case of papal infallibility, the most logical stance is to disbeleive it (Occam's razor)" was a pretty clear indicator that I was trying to play nice.
...all of which was a prelude to making some valid critiques on mistakes you made in your original post (specifically, what looked to me (and still looks to me) like your confusion of "infallible" and "impeccable").
Unfortunately, expecting that of you requires that I assumes you value genuine dialogue.
No, expecting that that I read your blog might require that you've seen my name previosly in your own comment threads (in this thread, among others, although I note that my disagreement with something that you said has been removed, leaving only this ghost-of-a-ghost) , or that you've read any of the four or so pieces of email I've sent you over the last year.
Until further notice-and I'll be pleased to be surprised, but I'm not going to hold my breath-I'll assume you turned up at my weblog solely to do a pharisaical drive-by and then skedaddle.
So what's your thinking here?
I'm a dedicated reader, you made a mistake on a matter of weird doctrine, I calmly - and even a bit self-deprecatingly - pointed out "yeah, it's a weird doctrine, but it shouldn't be critized for the *particular* reason that you're criticizing it"...
...and the proper response for you is to call me "boyo", tell me that I've got "egg on my face", label my comment "a pharisaical drive-by", snear that you know "people like me" and then, having put me in a group, make broad generalizations about me and people I've never met?
It's rude.
Oh? I'm the one that's rude?
I'd been mistakenly thinking that I was trying to engage in conversation and you'd flown off the handle.
It does no one any good, aside from making you feel swell
You're laboring under the (mistaken) belief that I was trying to put someone down, or build myself up. I was merely engaging in what I had - apparently mistakenly - thought was a civilized discussion of theology.
I've never had a religious discussion in my weblog that didn't attract someone like you-occasionally, two or three.
Just so I know - what exactly do you think you know about me, based on my comment pointing out that infallibility != impeccability ?
They always show up. They never engage.
I thought I had engaged. I thought that I had posted a calm note pointing out a minor confusion on your part.
I further think that the lack of engagement is on your part.
You took the time to post five paragraph to my blog, including several personal insults, and didn't once address the point of doctrine that I had brought up.
In the end, they contribute nothing to the discussion , unless it's to provide the real participants with a chew-toy of the mind. And I have to say that the tone most of them take would make Satan sound humble.
In conclusion:
1. You're not unique.
2. Please go away unless you can do better than that.
I hadn't realized that I'd said anything that argued that I was unique.
However, if this is how you treat someone who stops by to try to engage you in a bit of conversation on an interesting topic you've raised, you do make a very good argument (at least from my perspective) that I should go away.
I wouldn't expect a non-Catholic to beleive in papal infallibility, and I'm certainly not going to try to convince anyone to beleive in it.
I'm a Catholic, but I acknowledge that this stance rests on faith, not on logic - the most logical stance is agnosticism, and in the case of papal infallibility, the most logical stance is to disbeleive it (Occam's razor).
That being said, there are a few issues in your enumerated thinking above:
1. If that were true, surely someone would have noticed it earlier than 1870.
Church doctrines, like many laws, only become explicitly issued when there is a challenge to the preceding implicit consensus acceptance of the attitude/behavior/etc.
I was a history major, and one can find - for example - tons of Roman laws that did not encode new practices, but merely encoded old practices that were starting to be abandoned (one minor example: at one point soldiers were banned from having wives living in the barricks with them. This was not a new stance - it was a regulation codifying old practice, in response to flagrant violation).
2. When you look at the history of the Papacy, “infallible” is neither the first nor the twentieth adjective most likely to occur to you.
Infallible has a very specific meaning. Lots of dumb stuff (pronouncements on astronomy, etc.) did not meet the standards for Papal infallibility. The Pope can express his opinion of icrecream flavors, life on Mars, wether the square root of 9 is 3 or not, or whether the EU should have new standards for what time convenience stores close at night, and none of these are covered under the concept of infallibility.
Check out wikipedia.
4. Shall the Pope, alone of all God’s children, be stripped of his moral agency? That seems very wrong. Yet moral agency necessarily implies the ability to screw up.
The pope is not impeccable; merely infallible. He can rob a liquor store, keep concubines, or side with the RIAA in a legal case.
The pope absolutely has the ability to sin.
I suppose, to keep within the domains of your moral agency argument, I would agree that the Pope does not have the ability to commit one particular sin: he does not have the ability to teach a doctrine of faith or morals that he knows to be wrong.
However, that does not necessarilly mean that he lacks moral agency. One alternative explanation (plucked out of air just now) is that God is holding a deadman's switch that strikes the Pope dumb or dead. Thus, the pope can still sin in this area through intention, but he can not actually issue a false doctrine of faith.
Picture arms, handing boxes out of the back of a rental truck, Forever.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 7 |
| 2004 | 1 |
Total: 8 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Travis J I Corcoran:
Show all comments by Travis J I Corcoran.