Video in Good Shepherd Chapel - Niamh Horan

[armaghniac]

I probably wouldn't have sat here and let that hypocrite whinge about upset feelings while I know his perverted morality condones the facilitation of child rape.

Yes indeed, Tony Fearon is a "sinner", a "pervert" and "immoral" and such a person should not allowed expound their opinions. Are we any different from the 1950s?

But I should point out, in response to your charge of whataboutery, that my first post on this thread was after Fearon himself mounted yet another defence of the facilitation of child rape.

TheSkull responded to a harmless enough first post with whataboutery designed to derail the thread and you rowed in afterwards.

[Hardy]

I probably wouldn't have sat here and let that hypocrite whinge about upset feelings while I know his perverted morality condones the facilitation of child rape.

Yes indeed, Tony Fearon is a "sinner", a "pervert" and "immoral" and such a person should not allowed expound their opinions. Are we any different from the 1950s?

Stop mis-stating what I said. Why would you do that? People can read it in black and white above. I said he is a hypocrite.

But I should point out, in response to your charge of whataboutery, that my first post on this thread was after Fearon himself mounted yet another defence of the facilitation of child rape.

TheSkull responded to a harmless enough first post with whataboutery designed to derail the thread and you rowed in afterwards.

Nice try at another twist. I repeat, I brought up child rape AFTER Fearon defended its facilitation in this thread.


I do find it astounding that some people are more outraged by bad manners than by child rape. It's a fascinating and disturbing phenomenon. Maybe I'll start a separate thread on it, if that will make you feel better.

[deiseach]

I do find it astounding that some people are more outraged by bad manners than by child rape. It's a fascinating and disturbing phenomenon. Maybe I'll start a separate thread on it, if that will make you feel better.

The Free Speech For Fearon brigade always come out in force whenever anyone calls him out over yet another of his contributions. The fact that there is only one topic that ever gets him into trouble, a topic about which he has been repeatedly warned, never seems to disturb their belief that he is the victim of an Orwellian level of censorship.

[ONeill]

The decline in Religion generally has led to a society where there is no longer any moral or even civic values. The so called freedoms espoused by the liberal media, stand exposed as nothing but licence to indulge in any form of licentiousness or corruption. Attacks on young and old are treated as trivial offences in our Courts, even the daily murders are tolerated. A society that has no respect for itself, can hardly be called upon too respect others. The outrage in the Good Shepherd was Blasphemy Which used to be a crime deserving off moral outrage. Today it is no longer a crime and we are too acceptively permissive,  think ourselves too intelligent , cool and trendy, to even feign any sense of outrage. God help our children and grand-children we are bequeathing them some legacy

You should read about life in Ireland in the 1700s. And 1800s and 1900s. Depraved goings on, sometimes under the banner of religion. We're not too bad now.

[armaghniac]

I do find it astounding that some people are more outraged by bad manners than by child rape.

This would indeed be astounding, if it were true. Who said that they were more outraged by bad manners than by child rape? Where did they say this?

[Hardy]

I do find it astounding that some people are more outraged by bad manners than by child rape.

This would indeed be astounding, if it were true. Who said that they were more outraged by bad manners than by child rape? Where did they say this?

Stop acting the maggot and go work on your sense of perspective.

[theskull1]

TheSkull responded to a harmless enough first post with whataboutery designed to derail the thread and you rowed in afterwards.

I answered his post black and white. But in the context of Fearon speaking of his moral outrage at this admittedly distasteful incident, when balanced against his mulish defense of the leaders of his church it's pretty obvious that the whataboutery argument was going to be used and should be used to expose the hypocrisy of his position

[PAULD123]

Have none of you guys ever heard the expression two wrongs don't make a right?

Child sex abuse is abhorrent, the fact that it was committed by a fairly large number of the church's custodians is abhorrent, the fact that under the last Pope it was not hardly confessed is abhorrent. (At least the new Pope has openly condemned it us being as evil as satanic mass)

But the church isn't a single person, it isn't a single priest. There are many more decent wonderfully caring and kind individuals who are priests than there are sex abusers. There are millions of good people who follow Christianity and live good civil and decent lives.

Did any of these parishioners of the Good Shepherd commit these horrible acts? Are you seriously suggesting that they should have no rights to their freedom of worship because people who had nothing to do with them committed evil while a member of an organisation which they are members of? Most importantly they are members of an organisation because they believe in the stated principles, all of which would actually have condemned these evil acts.

Seriously Hardy and skull, are you implying that a single member of the good shepherd committed child sex abuse? or covered it up? or indeed has perpetrated any major crime? But at the same time you think they should be fair game, why?

By the way while I still believe in god, I long ago stopped believing in the teaching of the catholic church so I am no rabid catholic defending all in its name. But I can tell the difference between the good message of Christianity, the goodness in people who follow it and the Those people who hold themselves out as following it but actually betray its very principles with horrific acts.

[Orior]

I probably wouldn't have sat here and let that hypocrite whinge about upset feelings while I know his perverted morality condones the facilitation of child rape. But I should point out, in response to your charge of whataboutery, that my first post on this thread was after Fearon himself mounted yet another defence of the facilitation of child rape.

Is that a fact or are you putting words in his mouth?

[theskull1]

Have none of you guys ever heard the expression two wrongs don't make a right?

Child sex abuse is abhorrent, the fact that it was committed by a fairly large number of the church's custodians is abhorrent, the fact that under the last Pope it was not hardly confessed is abhorrent. (At least the new Pope has openly condemned it us being as evil as satanic mass)

But the church isn't a single person, it isn't a single priest. There are many more decent wonderfully caring and kind individuals who are priests than there are sex abusers. There are millions of good people who follow Christianity and live good civil and decent lives.

Did any of these parishioners of the Good Shepherd commit these horrible acts? Are you seriously suggesting that they should have no rights to their freedom of worship because people who had nothing to do with them committed evil while a member of an organisation which they are members of? Most importantly they are members of an organisation because they believe in the stated principles, all of which would actually have condemned these evil acts.

Seriously Hardy and skull, are you implying that a single member of the good shepherd committed child sex abuse? or covered it up? or indeed has perpetrated any major crime? But at the same time you think they should be fair game, why?

By the way while I still believe in god, I long ago stopped believing in the teaching of the catholic church so I am no rabid catholic defending all in its name. But I can tell the difference between the good message of Christianity, the goodness in people who follow it and the Those people who hold themselves out as following it but actually betray its very principles with horrific acts.

Maybe you're not familiar with the way Tony has showboated his loyalty to Brady and holds him blameless for his part in the attempted silencing of abused children and protection of the perpetrators. I replied to him with that in mind.

I have no clue about what the rest of your post is referencing because I've already agreed that it was totally distasteful

[Hardy]

Have none of you guys ever heard the expression two wrongs don't make a right?

Child sex abuse is abhorrent, the fact that it was committed by a fairly large number of the church's custodians is abhorrent, the fact that under the last Pope it was not hardly confessed is abhorrent. (At least the new Pope has openly condemned it us being as evil as satanic mass)

But the church isn't a single person, it isn't a single priest. There are many more decent wonderfully caring and kind individuals who are priests than there are sex abusers. There are millions of good people who follow Christianity and live good civil and decent lives.

Did any of these parishioners of the Good Shepherd commit these horrible acts? Are you seriously suggesting that they should have no rights to their freedom of worship because people who had nothing to do with them committed evil while a member of an organisation which they are members of? Most importantly they are members of an organisation because they believe in the stated principles, all of which would actually have condemned these evil acts.

Seriously Hardy and skull, are you implying that a single member of the good shepherd committed child sex abuse? or covered it up? or indeed has perpetrated any major crime? But at the same time you think they should be fair game, why?

By the way while I still believe in god, I long ago stopped believing in the teaching of the catholic church so I am no rabid catholic defending all in its name. But I can tell the difference between the good message of Christianity, the goodness in people who follow it and the Those people who hold themselves out as following it but actually betray its very principles with horrific acts.

What the hell are you talking about? Have you read my posts? Have I even mentioned the Good whatsit? How can you not understand that my point is about Fearon's hypocrisy? Can you seriously not see the grotesque standards of a person who, having started a thread to complain about some poor and insulting behaviour, then uses that  thread to trivialise the fate of child rape victims and to condone the actions of those who facilitated it?

How could my point, which, I thought was simple, plain and clearly put, have escaped you in a fog of nonsense and cliches about "two wrongs don't make a right" and the ludicrous innuendo that I implied that some people in that particular church committed sex abuse?

I probably wouldn't have sat here and let that hypocrite whinge about upset feelings while I know his perverted morality condones the facilitation of child rape. But I should point out, in response to your charge of whataboutery, that my first post on this thread was after Fearon himself mounted yet another defence of the facilitation of child rape.

Is that a fact or are you putting words in his mouth?

You too? Are you serious? Read his second post on this thread. He denies that the church tolerated child sex abuse. How is it possible for a reasonable person to read that and pass on as if it meant nothing, when it is a matter of record and even admitted by the institution itself at this stage that the church not only tolerated it but covered it up? Worse still, they facilitated it by moving its perpetrators around to keep them ahead of the law and, in the process, providing them with continuous streams of  fresh victims.

What sane, sensible, thinking, empathetic human being denies that now? What kind of person defends those who deny it?

[haveaharp]

Have none of you guys ever heard the expression two wrongs don't make a right?

Child sex abuse is abhorrent, the fact that it was committed by a fairly large number of the church's custodians is abhorrent, the fact that under the last Pope it was not hardly confessed is abhorrent. (At least the new Pope has openly condemned it us being as evil as satanic mass)

But the church isn't a single person, it isn't a single priest. There are many more decent wonderfully caring and kind individuals who are priests than there are sex abusers. There are millions of good people who follow Christianity and live good civil and decent lives.

Did any of these parishioners of the Good Shepherd commit these horrible acts? Are you seriously suggesting that they should have no rights to their freedom of worship because people who had nothing to do with them committed evil while a member of an organisation which they are members of? Most importantly they are members of an organisation because they believe in the stated principles, all of which would actually have condemned these evil acts.

Seriously Hardy and skull, are you implying that a single member of the good shepherd committed child sex abuse? or covered it up? or indeed has perpetrated any major crime? But at the same time you think they should be fair game, why?

By the way while I still believe in god, I long ago stopped believing in the teaching of the catholic church so I am no rabid catholic defending all in its name. But I can tell the difference between the good message of Christianity, the goodness in people who follow it and the Those people who hold themselves out as following it but actually betray its very principles with horrific acts.

What the hell are you talking about? Have you read my posts? Have I even mentioned the Good whatsit? How can you not understand that my point is about Fearon's hypocrisy? Can you seriously not see the grotesque standards of a person who, having started a thread to complain about some poor and insulting behaviour, then uses that  thread to trivialise the fate of child rape victims and to condone the actions of those who facilitated it?

How could my point, which, I though was simple, plain and clearly put, have escaped you in a fog of nonsense and cliches about "two wrongs don't make a right" and the ludicrous innuendo that I implied that some people in that particular church committed sex abuse?

I probably wouldn't have sat here and let that hypocrite whinge about upset feelings while I know his perverted morality condones the facilitation of child rape. But I should point out, in response to your charge of whataboutery, that my first post on this thread was after Fearon himself mounted yet another defence of the facilitation of child rape.

Is that a fact or are you putting words in his mouth?

You too? Are you serious? Read his second post on this thread. He denies that the church tolerated child sex abuse. How is it possible for a reasonable person to read that and pass on as if it meant nothing, when it is a matter of record and even admitted by the institution itself at this stage that the church not only tolerated it but covered it up? Worse still, they facilitated it by moving its perpetrators around to keep them ahead of the law and, in the process, providing them with continuous streams of  fresh victims.

What sane, sensible, thinking, empathetic human being denies that now? What kind of person defends those who deny it?

Lots of people, more is the pity

[Applesisapples]

Firstly Horan came across as a ranting gobsh**e. Secondly who was hurt and offended by this video? It wasn't the Paedo priests. It was honest god fearing church going people. It sickens my h**e when anti church posters tar every catholic with the same brush as the paedos and the Bishops who covered it up. Just because you have lost faith or have decided to use the scandals as a reason to opt out...as is your right you do not have the right to say that the parishioners of Good Sheppard shouldn't be annoyed because of the actions of some in the church.

[muppet]

The first thing that should have happened here is that we should have had a look at the journalist's form:



http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/niamh-horan-alex-fergusons-signing-in-dublinwas-an-insult-to-the-fans-29741065.html
http://www.independent.ie/woman/celeb-news/the-partys-over-una-sober-up-and-start-getting-some-sense-26616987.html
http://sineadoconnor.tumblr.com/page/5 . Sinead O'Connor on Horan - ..Once again The Irish Sunday Independent whom I used to write for ( and who never offered to pay me a penny for my work) and in particular Niamh Horan, of whom it has been said "her affair with a certain married show biz columnist is the worst kept secret in Dublin", have decided to spread untruths about me and do damage to me at a time when they know I am extremely unwell.

This is the modus operandai of this paper and in particular this woman , who seems quite bizarre in her obsession with me.

Really, a good therapist would not go astray, though whomever found themselves unlucky enough to be employed as Ms Horan's therapist would certainly have their work cut out for them and need eyes in the back of their head.

This is the same woman who tweeted on the day Whitney Houston died that it would be better if Christina Aguillera died...

And this is just the funniest thing I ever read, funny as in the most stupid person telling their 'story': http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/when-a-rapper-invites-you-to-party-he-doesnt-just-mean-bubbly-and-a-boogie-26286724.html

[Hardy]

Firstly Horan came across as a ranting gobsh**e. Secondly who was hurt and offended by this video? It wasn't the Paedo priests. It was honest god fearing church going people. It sickens my h**e when anti church posters tar every catholic with the same brush as the paedos and the Bishops who covered it up. Just because you have lost faith or have decided to use the scandals as a reason to opt out...as is your right you do not have the right to say that the parishioners of Good Sheppard shouldn't be annoyed because of the actions of some in the church.

I truly don't believe this shit. Point out where, in this thread, anyone has "tar(red) every catholic with the same brush as the paedos and the Bishops who covered it up".

Go on. I'll wait.

OK - nothing to be found. Why are you making stuff up? Never happened.