If a Dentist raped a 21 year old woman while she was under anethesia (eg under his control) and the judge stripped him of his license to practice Dentistry, wouldn't you be appalled?
Would your sense of moral indignation be placated if his attorney said "Well, it could have been worse. At least she wasn't 12"
Whether the putative dentist's victim was a 12 year-old or a 21-year old, would you thereafter refuse to have your cavities filled by ANY dentist????
From what I can see, the Holy Father leaves you prostrate in the dust in terms of “watts-in-the-bulb,” “analytical ability,” “knowing what questions to ask,” “reflective temperament,” and, perhaps most importantly, the genuine humility that that keeps the wise from being driven down false trails by arrogance.
Your note 31 demonstrates quite well that your claims to brilliance and analytical ability are grounded only in delusions of adequacy.
You wrote, “If a Dentist raped a 21 year old woman while she was under anethesia (eg under his control) and the judge stripped him of his license to practice Dentistry, wouldn't you be appalled? Would your sense of moral indignation be placated if his attorney said ‘Well, it could have been worse. At least she wasn't 12’ ”
That’s so bad, it’s not even wrong. It reminds me of leftist droolers staggering about awestruck by the Clintons’ 105-110 IQs.
A person who enjoyed true adequacy in terms of “watts-in-the-bulb,” “analytical ability,” “knowing what questions to ask,” and “reflective temperament” would have seen immediately that the comment to which you responded (#4, “If I recall these charges occurred decades ago and thank God didn’t involve kids.”) in no way indicates that a person isn’t appalled by a crime because it is a lesser crime than another, or that a person’s sense of moral indignation is placated by a statement that one crime is less heinous than another.
Those two concepts – to repeat, that a person isn’t appalled by a crime because it is a lesser crime than other, or that a person’s sense of moral indignation is placated by a statement that one crime is less heinous than another – are in no way implied by the statement to which you replied. One can’t even call it a stretch, because no amount of stretching gets you from what was said to what you inferred. Your reply is a complete non sequitur, and betrays a severe deficiency not merely in analytical ability, but even in the ability to understand simple English.
Given that starting point, it is hardly surprising that you had no idea what questions to ask, and your willingness to charge into the mouths of the guns with the wrong questions cannot be said to speak well of any “reflective temperament” you may wish to claim.
Further, if the Holy Father might be concerned with scandalizing the laity (Hint: if you’re going to swan about claiming to be more brilliant than the world’s great leaders, learning to spell would enhance your credibility.) where you would not, that merely shows that he surpasses you in wisdom and holiness as far as he does in “watts-in-the-bulb,” “analytical ability,” “knowing what questions to ask,” and “reflective temperament.”
“I don't want the job.”
How fortunate. That’s one disappointment life won’t deal you.
I think your ridiculously high opinion of yourself was explained by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle when he wrote, "Mediocrity knows nothing better than itself."
Well, of course I'd be appalled. You've missed my point entirely. In your example, as in mine, this person clearly violated his position of authority (no puns intended) and raped her and drugged her. His license should be revoked. He should be jailed.
To apply my point to your analogy, the dentist and the 21 yr old woman would willingly enter into a liaison in his office, whether he seduced her or she seduced him, and then proceed to have at it right there in the office, disregarding his oath and any legal or moral issues preventing him from hooking up, willingly, with every adult patient that comes through his door. Just as in my point about certain Priests, or others, engaging in inappropriate behavior with other willing adults, as in the case of one known to me who had a longtime affair with a married woman, often hooking up right in the school that employed both.
Would your sense of moral indignation be placated if his attorney said "Well, it could have been worse. At least she wasn't 12"
That couldn't be further from my point or reaction. It goes without saying, or so I thought, that his attorney would be a giant jackass if he said such a thing regarding the rape (not willing liaison) of an anesthetized (not even conscious, let alone willing) patient, regardless of age and 'my sense' of 'moral indignation' would be appropriate, not placated by such a remark.