|
Post by Amadan on Nov 17, 2017 11:50:03 GMT -5
So I'm not clear on what, exactly, the argument is anymore. The argument started with Vince raising the possibility of people suing the Church looking for a payday, which was then extended by you (and the article you cited) to people suing large corporations looking for a payday. Implication being that some of these suits are meritless, as in the Starbucks case. No one has disagreed that this is something that occurs in some fraction of cases. Like the Starbucks one. You and Vince, though, were clearly implying it's a problem of some kind, without ever clearly stating what the problem is. If you were just noting that sometimes this happens, what was the point? Hence my "water is wet" comment. It's kind of like (to drop another analogous tangent in here) if we were talking about prosecutions for rape, and you said "Well, you know, sometimes people make false rape accusations." Okay, and? Unless someone had said that this never happens, one might reasonably draw conclusions about why you felt a need to drop that comment in there, rather than just assuming you were making a random factual observation.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 17, 2017 12:24:03 GMT -5
So I'm not clear on what, exactly, the argument is anymore. The argument started with Vince raising the possibility of people suing the Church looking for a payday, which was then extended by you (and the article you cited) to people suing large corporations looking for a payday. Implication being that some of these suits are meritless, as in the Starbucks case. No one has disagreed that this is something that occurs in some fraction of cases. Like the Starbucks one. You and Vince, though, were clearly implying it's a problem of some kind, without ever clearly stating what the problem is. If you were just noting that sometimes this happens, what was the point? Hence my "water is wet" comment. It's kind of like (to drop another analogous tangent in here) if we were talking about prosecutions for rape, and you said "Well, you know, sometimes people make false rape accusations." Okay, and? Unless someone had said that this never happens, one might reasonably draw conclusions about why you felt a need to drop that comment in there, rather than just assuming you were making a random factual observation. I dropped the comment that the church has deep pockets, so it's not unreasonable to believe it could happen, especially once the scandal was known.
I never meant to imply that it was a known phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 17, 2017 13:29:55 GMT -5
So I'm not clear on what, exactly, the argument is anymore. The argument started with Vince raising the possibility of people suing the Church looking for a payday, which was then extended by you (and the article you cited) to people suing large corporations looking for a payday. Implication being that some of these suits are meritless, as in the Starbucks case. No one has disagreed that this is something that occurs in some fraction of cases. Like the Starbucks one. You and Vince, though, were clearly implying it's a problem of some kind, without ever clearly stating what the problem is. If you were just noting that sometimes this happens, what was the point? Hence my "water is wet" comment. It's kind of like (to drop another analogous tangent in here) if we were talking about prosecutions for rape, and you said "Well, you know, sometimes people make false rape accusations." Okay, and? Unless someone had said that this never happens, one might reasonably draw conclusions about why you felt a need to drop that comment in there, rather than just assuming you were making a random factual observation. If you look back, you'll see that Poet asked Vince about what it meant to say that the Catholic Church was a target, I piped in with my own opinion in that regard, which you apparently agree with. Everything else seems to have been a result of a McDonald's coffee triggering.
|
|