Watch your language!

[Occhidiangela]

Thank you for your reply. I won't pretend to have followed all that you put forth, but would I be doing an injustice to your thought, based upon your previous post, to understand "people whose common cultural assumptions are based on a broken papist hacienda system" to  be a circumlocution that means "Catholics"?
[right][snapback]86780[/snapback][/right]

No, not Catholics per se. Explicitly, the idea centers on the core embedded assumptions of a legitimate power exercised, as moral authority and more, by the Papacy over the lands founded by the Papist mother country.

Nothing so mundane as a religious matter. I am trying to convey more a broken fusion of autocratic and religious social models carrying forth to impact modern day polotical and societal behaviors and norms.

Let's not pretend this idea is ready to be the title for a new book. There are still some counters and nuances I need to consider, and of course there is probably some discarding to to.

Occhi

[Guest]

Occhi hes playing dumb.

1 Its clear he has a better than average grasp of the English language(either that or hes using quotes he doesnt understand.)

2 You sais "Papist Hacienda system". "System" being a key word and easily understood.
If you had said "Hacienda Papists" then his question would be reasonable, but you didnt.

To complain about a state systen based on Catholism is no at all the same as complaining about a Catholics.
This wanker knows the difference and is trying imply you attacked Catholics by pretendings he is a dolt.

[Occhidiangela]

Occhi hes playing dumb.

1 Its clear he has a better than average grasp of the English language(either that or hes using quotes he doesnt understand.)

2 You sais "Papist Hacienda system".  "System" being a key word and easily understood.
If you had said "Hacienda Papists" then his question would be reasonable, but you didnt.

To complain about a state systen based on Catholism is no at all the same as complaining about a Catholics.
This wanker knows the difference and is trying imply you attacked Catholics by pretendings he is a dolt.
[right][snapback]86784[/snapback][/right]

You are probably right, but perhaps by asking the question and evoking a reply about the ideas behind the label, it made the idea being conveyed clearer to another who is not as clever.

Occhi

[wakim]

Occhi hes playing dumb.

1 Its clear he has a better than average grasp of the English language...

This wanker knows the difference and is... pretendings he is a dolt. [sic]
[right][snapback]86784[/snapback][/right]

You know, Ghostiger, I'd of thought that you would be about the last person to argue a demonstrable correlation between rhetorical eloquence and intelligence.

2 You sais "Papist Hacienda system". "System" being a key word and easily understood.
If you had said "Hacienda Papists" then his question would be reasonable, but you didnt.

To complain about a state systen based on Catholism is no at all the same as complaining about a Catholics. [sic] [right][snapback]86784[/snapback][/right]

The quote wasn't simply "papist hacienda system," but more fully, "people whose common cultural assumptions are based on a broken Papist Hacienda system...." Doesn't it seem possible that these people being referred to, those with these common assumptions based upon a "broken papist hacienda system", may be Catholics? or perhaps the "broken" part refers to Protestants who do not follow the "unbroken papist hacienda system" that Catholics would? Regardless, shouldn't such an assumption be directly questioned rather than one proceed upon what may be prove to be false premises?

Again, I am flattered that you impute to me such sagacity that you think my ignorance feigned, but allow me to reassure you that no matter how much wisdom I possess I cannot read minds, only words, and where I fail to do so well I would welcome what assistance you, or any, may provide, but hopefully with the now repeated ad hominems aside.

Edit: Content to address point 2

[Occhidiangela]

You know, Ghostiger, I'd of thought that you would be about the last person to argue a demonstrable correlation between rhetorical eloquence and intelligence.
[right][snapback]86792[/snapback][/right]

Gratuitous Grammar Gestapo

"I'd have thought" which is a contraction for "I would have thought" rather than your, of uncertain sense, "I'd of thought." On the off chance that you are unaware of the origin of the phrase you were trying to use, or that you are not a native English speaker, this Grammar Gestapo Moment is brought to you by the letter winkie.

;)

Occhi

[wakim]

Explicitly, the idea centers on the core embedded assumptions of a legitimate power exercised, as moral authority and more, by the Papacy over the lands founded by the Papist mother country. 
[right][snapback]86782[/snapback][/right]

Thank you for explaining further. If I may continue to beg upon your indulgence then please allow me to ask a question that I hope will serve to clearly differentiate: It is my understanding that one of the principle tenets of Catholicism is the recognition of the legitimate power exercised by the papacy to act as the ultimate authority in matters of both faith and morals. If this is an inseparable element of Catholicism how does one differentiate between a "papist hacienda system," explicitly described in the quote above, and Catholicism? or is the devil in the detail of the "and more" that serves to distinguish the two?

I am trying to convey more a broken fusion of autocratic and religious social models carrying forth to impact modern day political and societal behaviors and norms. [right][snapback]86782[/snapback][/right]

Without further explanation or example can not this statement be taken to apply equally to about anything? For example: In 1776 our Founding Fathers established a broken fusion of autocratic and religious social models that impact modern day political and societal behaviors and norms - the autocratic element evinced by the establishment of an executive branch whose power resides in one man, and the religious social model in its first principle that governments exists solely to secure the unalienable rights of man that are endowed self-evidently by his Creator.

Edit: Grammar!

[Guest]

Ah - now you say "may". Of course they "may" be Catholic but thats not what you suggested. You suggested Occhi was using code to say "Catholic".


A good analogy would be If I talked about the evils of "white supremecy" and you said "by white supremists do you mean caucasion?"
Just because almost all white supremisists are white dont mean I implied all whites are evil.

This is rather obvious logic.



Please go play pretend else where.




EDIT: BTW you confused intellectual honesty with rhetorical elegance. They are not the same. If that will make you happy Ill blame that mistake on you being dumb ok?

[wakim]

Please go play pretend else where.
[right][snapback]86800[/snapback][/right]

I do not think that anything I may now say will convince you to cease your sciamachy; I haven't written what you think I have written, meant what you think I mean, or been motivated by what your presumption presumes; but I recognize that if you will not first allow entrance for the possibility of doubt within your thought that I have not the capacity to tell you what you do not wish to know.

Please stop considering that every post I make is an opportunity for you to aim your insults at me. I have tolerated your name-calling of "dumb," "dolt," dishonest, and worse. I would not have thought that the behavior that you have exemplified in this thread would be regarded as acceptable discourse in a moderated fora.

If you will not extend the good will that is sine qua non to argument then please stop existing only to tax mine.

[Occhidiangela]

Thank you for explaining further. If I may continue to beg upon your indulgence then please allow me to ask a question that I hope will serve to clearly differentiate: It is my understanding that one of the principle tenets of Catholicism is the recognition of the legitimate power exercised by the papacy to act as the ultimate authority in matters of both faith and morals. If this is an inseparable element of Catholicism how does one differentiate between a "papist hacienda system," explicitly described in the quote above, and Catholicism? or is the devil in the detail of the "and more" that serves to distinguish the two?
Without further explanation or example can not this statement be taken to apply equally to about anything? For example: In 1776 our Founding Fathers established a broken fusion of autocratic and religious social models that impact modern day political and societal behaviors and norms - the autocratic element evinced by the establishment of an executive branch whose power resides in one man, and the religious social model in its first principle that governments exists solely to secure the unalienable rights of man that are endowed self-evidently by his Creator.

Edit: Grammar!
[right][snapback]86795[/snapback][/right]

Short answer:

1. You presume a legitimacy of political authority for the Pope that I do not, within the context of the American political model. THe strawman of a religious government under the Constitution dies a quick death.

The Papacy continues to pretend, even after Garibaldi, Cavour, et al, put paid to the Pope's secular power, an influence and authority over the world's Catholics and for that matter all people since a cathloic faith is supposed to eventually take all under its paternalistic care, that harkens back to the power exercised byt Mother Church under the ancien regime. That conceptual hold was never relinquished under the Spanophile world. (IS that even a word?)

2. The alleged religious model you attempt to reconstruct ignores the explicit theoretical background, the concept, derived from the Enlightenment, that secular authority can (and to some thinkers should) exist without interference from religious authorities. Not surprisingly, a Holy Roman Emperor or two had similar sentiments.

3. The South American, and specifically the Mexican, cultural model is feudal and broken . . . as compared to the American model.

Cultures are not all equal.

Occhi

[Guest]

I stand by the assessment of dishonesty . That is not in contrast with forum rules as long it concerns your posts.

[wakim]

1.  You presume a legitimacy of political authority for the Pope that I do not, within the context of the American political model. 

2.  The alleged religious model you attempt to reconstruct ignores the explicit theoretical background, the concept, derived from the Enlightenment, that secular authority can (and to some thinkers should) exist without interference from religious authorities. 

3.  The South American, and specifically the Mexican, cultural model is feudal and broken . . . as compared to the American model. 

Cultures are not all equal.
[right][snapback]86816[/snapback][/right]

Thank you for your reply. If I may I'd like to address myself to a few of your points to provide clarification. First, I did not presume a recognized political authority for the papacy, nor did I assert that a Catholic would necessarily hold this. I asserted that Catholics support the legitimacy of the papacy to declare with utmost authority in matters of faith and morals. I asked if you would disagree that this assertion is an inseparable tenet of Catholicism, and if this is an inseparable tenet, then whether one who disputes the correctness of this tenet under any other name is really disputing Catholicism - your words, in explanation of the phrase "papist hacienda system," nearly mirrored this tenet with the exception of adding "and more."

Second, I have not to my knowledge constructed, or reconstructed, any religious model, be it opposed to or in favor of secular political authority, or otherwise. The only reference I made in this regard was to the Declaration of Independence so as to illustrate an example I drew to qualify my failure to grasp, without additional explanation or example, the meaning of the phrase, "broken fusion of autocratic and religious social models that impact modern day political and societal behaviors and norms."

Third, my knowledge of South and Central America, and South or Central American "cultural models" is slight to nonexistent, be they feudal, broken, or otherwise; I have never been to South American, I have never studied South America, I don't know a burrito from a chalupa when it's served to me in a Mexican restaurant. I do therefore presume that your knowledge in this area may greatly exceed mine, hence I hoped to ask questions of you so that my ignorance in this regard would not continue unabated.

Fourth, I have not disputed your assertion that all cultures are not equal.

Please, do not consider that I am arguing for, or against, anything up to this point; I am simply trying to understand the assertion made that, "increasing the percentage of people whose common cultural assumptions are based on a broken Papist Hacienda system is not good for America." I began first by asking for definition of those parts of the phrase which by unfamiliarity, or by virtue of being a unique coinage, I didn't understand ("broken papist hacienda system") and then hoped to incorporate that understanding into "people whose common cultural assumptions are based on a broken Papist Hacienda system," so that I could understand why this was "not good for America." I haven't reached this point yet, but I suspect that if I continue my questions to this end that I will exhaust the indulgence and patience of those who have persevered this far with me, and that would not be fair coin to pay for the knowledge I hoped to gain.

[Occhidiangela]

Thanks.

Thank you for your reply. If I may I'd like to address myself to a few of your points to provide clarification. First, I did not presume a recognized political authority for the papacy, nor did I assert that a Catholic would necessarily hold this. I asserted that Catholics support the legitimacy of the papacy to declare with utmost authority in matters of faith and morals. I asked if you would disagree that this assertion is an inseparable tenet of Catholicism, and if this is an inseparable tenet, then whether one who disputes the correctness of this tenet under any other name is really disputing Catholicism - your words, in explanation of the phrase "papist hacienda system," nearly mirrored this tenet with the exception of adding "and more."

Second, I have not to my knowledge constructed, or reconstructed, any religious model, be it opposed to or in favor of secular political authority, or otherwise. The only reference I made in this regard was to the Declaration of Independence so as to illustrate an example I drew to qualify my failure to grasp, without additional explanation or example, the meaning of the phrase, "broken fusion of autocratic and religious social models that impact modern day political and societal behaviors and norms."

Third, my knowledge of South and Central America, and South or Central American "cultural models" is slight to nonexistent, be they feudal, broken, or otherwise; I have never been to South American, I have never studied South America, I don't know a burrito from a chalupa when it's served to me in a Mexican restaurant. I do therefore presume that your knowledge in this area may greatly exceed mine, hence I hoped to ask questions of you so that my ignorance in this regard would not continue unabated.

Fourth, I have not disputed your assertion that all cultures are not equal.

Please, do not consider that I am arguing for, or against, anything up to this point; I am simply trying to understand the assertion made that, "increasing the percentage of people whose common cultural assumptions are based on a broken Papist Hacienda system is not good for America." I began first by asking for definition of those parts of the phrase which by unfamiliarity, or by virtue of being a unique coinage, I didn't understand ("broken papist hacienda system") and then hoped to  incorporate that understanding into "people whose common cultural assumptions are based on a broken Papist Hacienda system," so that I could understand why this was "not good for America." I haven't reached this point yet, but I suspect that if I continue my questions to this end that I will exhaust the indulgence and patience of those who have persevered this far with me, and that would not be fair coin to pay for the knowledge I hoped to gain.
[right][snapback]86824[/snapback][/right]