FOS discussion

[Redacted]

Morrissey is the one who changed it to a hotel room because he can't bother to get facts straight when running his mouth

 

[Orca]

Why do you think it's so odd? Traditional Catholicism is essentially just a sectarian movement within the Church that doesn't accept the reforms of the 1960s. If you're genuinely interested, I could explain to you their theory of how a Catholic can recognize the pope yet resist his teachings. I no longer think this theory is any good; nevertheless, it's there, and traditional Catholics are convinced by it. But because the theory is so tenuous, a splinter sect has emerged. These are the sedevacantists: traditional Catholics who believe that almost the entire hierarchy apostatized at Vatican II, that there hasn't been a valid pope since Pius XII, and that they and their priests and bishops are the remnant Church. Sedevacantists stand in relation to the Vatican like the Russian Old Believers stand in relation to the Russian Orthodox Church. Each side excommunicates the other.

The best-known traditional Catholic group is the Society of St. Pius X, founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in the 1970s to form priests who would offer the Latin Mass exclusively and preach the pre-Vatican II faith unadulterated. You can read their mission statement on their website, and they also have a pretty comprehensive Wikipedia entry. Peace be with you.

You didn’t answer the question.

You stated you were a “traditional Catholic”. What did you do that made you a traditional Catholic over a non traditional Catholic?

It is a strange thing to state oneself was a “traditional Catholic”. It isn’t a term anyone uses to describe themselves within Catholicism.

You are confusing several elements. I understand fully these elements within the Catholic Church. I have written two books on Vatican II.

The issue you stated re the Latin mass isn’t quite correct. The pope has no issue with the Latin mass. What you are referring to is the Tridentine mass which is different from just a Latin mass. The Pope’s complaint is with the Tridentine mass and the very tiny number of groups who are against the rulings of Vatican II. But those groups have been around for many decades. It is just about internal divisions but is nothing new and not really growing as you suggest. There are about 1000 churches in the whole world that celebrate the Tridentine mass. Within a Catholic population of 1.2 billion it is nothing of too much concern.

I don’t need Wikipedia to learn about Lefebvre and the SSPX. I have attended many of their events.

What I would like to know is what made you a “traditional Catholic”?

And what this has to do with the female role within Catholicism and the freedom to speak?

 

[Anonymous]

He said it sounded untrue because he didn't think a 14 year old would go into a hotel room.

Rapp didn't say he was in a hotel room - he said he was in a bedroom. Spacey didn't have a separate bedroom - he had a studio apartment. Which is why Spacey won the court case.

Don’t be ridiculous

You think a civil case for battery was lost because Spacey had a studio apartment?

Where are you getting this point about a studio apartment? Please link to it.

It was lost because Rapp couldn't prove that Spacey had touched him intimately in a sexual way. The fact they were in Spacey's apartment was never doubted in court and not challenged by Spacey. It seems only you are doing that.

What has that to do with Morrissey saying he didn’t believe the accuser because any 14 year old would know what could happen if he was alone with an adult?

 

[Lucifer Sam]

You didn’t answer the question.

You stated you were a “traditional Catholic”. What did you do that made you a traditional Catholic over a non traditional Catholic?

It is a strange thing to state oneself was a “traditional Catholic”. It isn’t a term anyone uses to describe themselves within Catholicism.

You are confusing several elements. I understand fully these elements within the Catholic Church. I have written two books on Vatican II.

The issue you stated re the Latin mass isn’t quite correct. The pope has no issue with the Latin mass. What you are referring to is the Tridentine mass which is different from just a Latin mass. The Pope’s complaint is with the Tridentine mass and the very tiny number of groups who are against the rulings of Vatican II. But those groups have been around for many decades. It is just about internal divisions but is nothing new and not really growing as you suggest. There are about 1000 churches in the whole world that celebrate the Tridentine mass. Within a Catholic population of 1.2 billion it is nothing of too much concern.

I don’t need Wikipedia to learn about Lefebvre and the SSPX. I have attended many of their events.

What I would like to know is what made you a “traditional Catholic”?

I did answer your question. I told you I had been a traditional Catholic, and I described traditional Catholics as Catholics who reject the reforms of Vatican II. That's what I believed: that the council represented a rupture with tradition.

I can see your sleight of hand with the numbers. True, as you point out, the worldwide Catholic population is estimated at 1.2 billion, but the Vatican is concerned not just with people, but with money. Catholics from the developing world may be numerous and devout, but they are not collectively rich and cannot sustain the Church's coffers. And many of the 1.2 billion, especially in Europe and North America, identify as Catholic but are essentially only cultural or nominal Catholics. They're not committed, either in attendance or with their wallets. Pope Francis is rightly concerned about the growth of traditional Catholicism, because it appeals to a small but crucial portion of the faithful the Church needs.

You're right that traditionalist groups have been around for decades, but if you've written books on Vatican II and attended events of the SSPX, then you must know that interest in the Latin Mass surged after Pope Benedict's universal indult in 2007. His intent was ecumenical: to bring the SSPX and other quasi-schismatic groups back into the fold. But the plan backfired, and more Catholics in the wealthy West started to take an interest in the "Extraordinary Form" and began grumbling about modernist Rome. The pandemic only made things worse. When diocesan parishes closed in obedience to the lockdowns, many Latin Mass parishes refused to offer their grain of incense, and stayed open. Francis is trying to put the lid back on Pandora's box.

And what this has to do with the female role within Catholicism and the freedom to speak?

Not much. You're the one who's pressing for details of my personal piety. I've told you (and I guess you already know) that traditional Catholicism is gaining momentum, and that its views on a woman's place are closer to the teachings of Trent than those of the 1970s. Should we get back on topic?

 

[Vesper Nocturne]

Let me help you :

"people feel sorry for you....I think the hilarious part is that you keep typing ....It’s beyond comical how many words you’ve typed"

Sure perfectly acceptable statements.

I don't care if you think the facts of a legal case available officially are not accurate or if you are stating that because you were sexually abused means you have some kind of super knowledge to state someone is factually incorrect. It doesn't.

I haven't rambled about my dislike of Morrissey. I don't hate anyone and have no invested hatred of anyone.

The whole point of my discussion was about whether Morrissey has been the victim of an orchestrated silencing plan as he is stating. It is all about that.

I don't feel unvalidated at all, far from it. Why on earth should I? I have no idea what validation you think I am looking for. I just made a point at the start of this thread which came from the London gig review and people just keep replying to me so the discussion interests me. Nothing to do with mental health issues re your "unhinged" point or any feeling of being unvalidated. Just an interesting democratic free discussion.

It has nothing to do with moving on. It is purely about having a discussion about a subject with regards to freedom of speech and silencing and whether Morrissey's view that 4 people have deliberately concocted a plan to silence him or whether it is just people choosing what to buy.



Very grown up. I'm not throwing out anything and certainly not sobbing. I'm very happy thanks.

I'm not showing anyone I can't move on. I don't need to move on. There is nothing to move on from. I'm just having a discussion about freedom to speak and silencing and how some circles think people's personal choices are claimed to be deliberate silencing if they don't like those personal choices. It's interesting and others obviously since we are now on page 10.

If you don't find it interesting and your only retort is childish exemplifications of toys being thrown cause someone dare to bore you then so be it. You could just be grown up and ignore it.

You mistake me for someone who gives a damn what you think.

Lol, I don’t know what you understand when people speak to you, but my comments to you had nothing to do with any of anything in this super long response that you typed in return. So my reasonable assumption is that you frequently understand nothing. Which would explain a lot, actually, of why you keep going repeating nonsense.

I was talking to you about the topic and the fact that your continually saying that Morrissey victim shamed someone doesn’t make it so.

And the fact that you keep repeating your same fixations to literally any number of different people who have interacted with you on this thread, really does point to the fact that you care very much. Too add to which, you literally just typed an entire diatribe about how much you “don’t care”.

So yes, I do think your responses are off-topic, incorrect, and all comical, and you still come off as unhinged in literally every response you type

 

[Redacted]

Here's an article about all the times Morrissey's speech was supressed and he was silenced

The uncomfortable truth about Morrissey - Far Out Magazine

It's awkward

faroutmagazine.co.uk

Over recent years, the volume of Morrissey’s voice has become an ever-increasing one. Having made some seriously disgusting remarks about Anthony Rapp, the accuser of Kevin Spacey: “One wonders if the boy did not know what would happen,” said Morrissey, “When you are in somebody’s bedroom, you have to be aware of where that can lead.”

 

[Malarkey]

Don’t be ridiculous

You think a civil case for battery was lost because Spacey had a studio apartment?

Where are you getting this point about a studio apartment? Please link to it.

It was lost because Rapp couldn't prove that Spacey had touched him intimately in a sexual way. The fact they were in Spacey's apartment was never doubted in court and not challenged by Spacey. It seems only you are doing that.

What has that to do with Morrissey saying he didn’t believe the accuser because any 14 year old would know what could happen if he was alone with an adult?

Kevin Spacey found not liable in sex abuse suit brought by Anthony Rapp

Rapp alleged that Spacey climbed on top of him at a New York City party in 1986, when Rapp was 14 and Spacey was 26.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Malarkey]

Here's an article about all the times Morrissey's speech was supressed and he was silenced

The uncomfortable truth about Morrissey - Far Out Magazine

It's awkward

faroutmagazine.co.uk

Over recent years, the volume of Morrissey’s voice has become an ever-increasing one. Having made some seriously disgusting remarks about Anthony Rapp, the accuser of Kevin Spacey: “One wonders if the boy did not know what would happen,” said Morrissey, “When you are in somebody’s bedroom, you have to be aware of where that can lead.”

He said:

.. of course there are extreme cases and rape is revolting and any kind of physical attack is revolting..

I’ve never been, in my youth, in situations like that. Never. And I was always aware of how, where things could go. And if you’re in somebody’s bedroom, you have to be aware, where it could lead to, and you have to say why, why are we here, why aren’t we downstairs in the lobby… so it doesn’t quite ring true to me.

 

[NealCassidy]

Free speech is returning!

 

[gashonthenail]

Don’t be ridiculous

You think a civil case for battery was lost because Spacey had a studio apartment?

Where are you getting this point about a studio apartment? Please link to it.

It was lost because Rapp couldn't prove that Spacey had touched him intimately in a sexual way. The fact they were in Spacey's apartment was never doubted in court and not challenged by Spacey. It seems only you are doing that.

What has that to do with Morrissey saying he didn’t believe the accuser because any 14 year old would know what could happen if he was alone with an adult?

The issue of the studio flat was indeed brought up at the trial. The defence said that the floorplan ended up being the 'star witness'. In other words no one went into Spacey's bedroom because there wasn't one.

Spacey’s attorneys also focused on what they said were inconsistencies in Rapp’s story, especially around the floor plan of the apartment where the alleged event occurred. Rapp had recalled a flat with a separate bedroom, while Spacey actually lived in a one-room studio. “The star witness of our case was the floor plan,” Spacey’s attorney Jennifer Keller said in her closing statements.

Jury rules Kevin Spacey is not liable in Anthony Rapp sexual misconduct case

A jury ruled that Kevin Spacey is liable for no damages at the conclusion of a contentious sexual misconduct lawsuit brought by Anthony Rapp.

consequence.net

 

[Redacted]

He said:

.. of course there are extreme cases and rape is revolting and any kind of physical attack is revolting..

I’ve never been, in my youth, in situations like that. Never. And I was always aware of how, where things could go. And if you’re in somebody’s bedroom, you have to be aware, where it could lead to, and you have to say why, why are we here, why aren’t we downstairs in the lobby… so it doesn’t quite ring true to me.

Don't you have people to dox?

 

[gashonthenail]

In his case they are views. There is an internet full of his views about women and their role in the world. But are they the same as views or behaviours or whatever you would chose to call them as said and carried out by current religious people. I wouldn’t think so.

I personally wouldn’t want to see teenage boys living with this kind of role model and as has been said by someone there are schools who have reported that they have boys treating girls badly based on their agreement with Andrew Tate’s views.

There is a difference I think when we are talking about adults being able to make up their own minds about these kind of things and freedom to speak but when young children are manipulated online with this kind of trash then I think there has to be a conversation regarding the safeguarding of children. Other examples include online pages that teach children to self harm with videos to teach them about suicide as a release. They do exist and there have been incidents because of that freedom to speak.

But I am tired now. I have seen you argue your points with other people on many things continually on this site to the point it just goes back and forth to no avail or consensus or agreement. From what I have seen I think you would argue to the death about a topic even if you didn’t believe it yourself. So I will leave you and just accept we will never agree on this.

I only became interested in this discussion because of the religious theological points made because theology is a topic of interest to me.

Hope all goes well for you and god bless

I think I offended you by suggesting that there was some sort of moral equivalence between Mr Tate and religious scripture. That was not what I was suggesting in any way. I have respect for anyone of faith. I was simply suggesting that there are people who find offence in the words of Mr Tate, of course, but there are also people who find offence in religious scripture and faith, especially Christianity. It does mostly seem to be 'traditional' Christianity that arouses such offence - much less so 'traditional' Judaism or Islam. As an old fashioned liberal, I think the lack of tolerance of religious belief is worrying. Some universities have tried to exclude Christian societies from fresher fairs. Kate Forbes, one of the candidates for SNP Leader, was virtually ruled out for standing at one point because she has 'traditional' Christian views on issues such as gay marriage. The former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, was given a similar rough ride for being a Christian, and he cited this as one of the issues that led to his resignation. What would a 'sensitivity reader' make of The Bible?

Why the Bible Is Getting Pulled Off School Bookshelves

In an ironic twist, the Bible showed up in mass book removal efforts in at least three districts.

www.edweek.org

 

[Malarkey]

Don't you have people to dox?

View attachment 90060

That doesn't change it.

He's against physical attacks & he doesn't think the story rang true.

& the story actually wasn't true.

 

[Redacted]

That doesn't change it.

He's against physical attacks & he doesn't think the story rang true.

& the story actually wasn't true.

You just keep repeating yourself, it's insanity, I won't be entertaining your crazy Morrissey obsession

 

[Malarkey]

You just keep repeating yourself, it's insanity, I won't be entertaining your crazy Morrissey obsession

You keep repeating yourself... on this Morrissey website.

 

[Anonymous]

Lol, I don’t know what you understand when people speak to you, but my comments to you had nothing to do with any of anything in this super long response that you typed in return. So my reasonable assumption is that you frequently understand nothing. Which would explain a lot, actually, of why you keep going repeating nonsense.

I was talking to you about the topic and the fact that your continually saying that Morrissey victim shamed someone doesn’t make it so.

And the fact that you keep repeating your same fixations to literally any number of different people who have interacted with you on this thread, really does point to the fact that you care very much. Too add to which, you literally just typed an entire diatribe about how much you “don’t care”.

So yes, I do think your responses are off-topic, incorrect, and all comical, and you still come off as unhinged in literally every response you type

ooh how hurtful.

You said no one is interested and yet you keep replying.

My responses are not off topic. I started the topic and it was moved from the gig review to this thread when it went off topic into trans gender issues but my posts are completely on topic in relation to the starting post of mine.

you saying this makes no difference to me and I find it comical. If you are so not interested then the fact you take time out to post these things in response to something you state you aren't interested in really does make you unhinged more than it does me. I am posting about something I am interested in and replying to people who are commenting about the discussion. Whereas you are just weird.

Till you want to next say how you aren't interested .....ta ta

 

[caramel sea salt]

Can anyone explain in two to three sentences what it is you people are arguing over?

In case anyone is interested, my two cents: Kevin Spacey is a monumental sleaze bag and Anthony Rapp is a monumental opportunist. When I was fourteen and would follow a 48 year old to his hotel room/bed room whatever I knew we weren’t going to play Scrabble.

Andrew Tate is a knob but we can’t ban/cancel everyone who is a knob.

Free speech but no incitement to violence and hate speech!

Regarding Morrissey: I used to be in the “Morrissey is a knob” camp because The Guardian told me so, but he is steadfast and not wrong on a lot of things, and I have nothing but admiration for him these days (and I’ll always be grateful to him for saving my life when I was a young gayling). And thank you for the music!

 

[Anonymous]

You

View attachment 90059

Kevin Spacey found not liable in sex abuse suit brought by Anthony Rapp

Rapp alleged that Spacey climbed on top of him at a New York City party in 1986, when Rapp was 14 and Spacey was 26.

www.nbcnews.com

You are still missing the whole point.

It has nothing to do with this case or whether it was a hotel, a bedroom or an apartment. That is irrelevant.

The point is Morrissey's response to the abuse claimant before any details in court had been relayed to anyone and that response was that he didn't believe the claimant of abuse because he didn't believe a 14 year old boy would go into a room with an adult without being aware that sexual abuse could happen.

It is Morrissey's reason why he didn't believe the alleged victim that is the problem. Has nothing to do with the specifics of this case.

It is also Morrissey's statement regarding the abuse claimants from the Me Too movement when he said people who are speaking out are only doing so because they are disappointed they didn't get a successful career out of it.

It couldn't be any clearer.

 

[Anonymous]

He said:

.. of course there are extreme cases and rape is revolting and any kind of physical attack is revolting..

I’ve never been, in my youth, in situations like that. Never. And I was always aware of how, where things could go. And if you’re in somebody’s bedroom, you have to be aware, where it could lead to, and you have to say why, why are we here, why aren’t we downstairs in the lobby… so it doesn’t quite ring true to me.

and why don't you see a problem with that?

You think a 14 year old would never go into an adult's room or a 14 year old should know what could happen in a room with an adult?

Which is it you believe from Morrissey's statement?

 

[Anonymous]

The issue of the studio flat was indeed brought up at the trial. The defence said that the floorplan ended up being the 'star witness'. In other words no one went into Spacey's bedroom because there wasn't one.

Spacey’s attorneys also focused on what they said were inconsistencies in Rapp’s story, especially around the floor plan of the apartment where the alleged event occurred. Rapp had recalled a flat with a separate bedroom, while Spacey actually lived in a one-room studio. “The star witness of our case was the floor plan,” Spacey’s attorney Jennifer Keller said in her closing statements.

Jury rules Kevin Spacey is not liable in Anthony Rapp sexual misconduct case

A jury ruled that Kevin Spacey is liable for no damages at the conclusion of a contentious sexual misconduct lawsuit brought by Anthony Rapp.

consequence.net

I understand that but it isn't the point.

The issue is with Morrissey's statement prior to any court case, saying he didn't think it was true because a 14 year old would have been aware what could happen in an adult's room.

Morrissey had no idea at the point the statement was made whether it was a hotel, a bedroom or a studio apartment. I'm not arguing here whether Rabb was being honest or not. It is purely about Morrissey dismissing him because he didn't believe a 14 year old would be unaware of what could happen when in a room with an adult.

Many 14 year olds have been abused in rooms with adults so why did Morrissey make that statement?