Thursday, February 9, 2012

I Got A Rebuttal... Sort Of

So remember how I took the hundred dollar challenge? Well, the creator of that video has had some responses to me in the form of PMs. I think it's safe to say that money will never be paid out. I never expected it to of course, but I felt it was worth while to post these emails nonetheless. At first, he writes me this:

Hi CrystalEye736
This is Luca and you may talk to me in both English or Italian.
Nevertheless, the youtube channel "ModernItaly" is in English (ItaliaModerna is in Italian). I am also on skype "Luca di ItaliaModerna" for better clarification of the question "ad hoc".

I only care of two points

1) The freedom of conscience (freddom to have a personal opinion in philosophy, cosmology, science, art), the basic of democracy

2) The law is the same for all people, no gods, no indulgencies, no godfathers above the law... (personal choice, personal responsability) another principle of democracy. "You" did it, for whatever reason you like, and God doesn't justify any crime.

I am not surprised the Italian schoolbooks make some intentional confusion on this topic, and this is the reason why I am duing the videos.

Freedom of conscience links with personal responsabilities,
no freedom no responsabilities... This is a good reason to consider the freedom of conscience as a sin (freedom of choice), an heresy, especially if "you" plan to be a faithful criminal.

Meanwhile the godfather is ruling Italy with laws "ad personam". This is just tradition in the daily news, the italian indulgency system is as strong as it was 1000 years ago.

Including journalists, politician, judges, academics, all the intellectual society with no exception...The point is the "No Exception" I documented for a few international institutions few years ago... Actions were taken but I am not to discuss this by mail, you must get the point first.

How did the catholic heresies turned up to be catholic legacy?
Starting from the freedom of conscience... What is the probability no italian ever asked, in 80 years of history?
What is this? a miracle or an holocaust?

Well, instead of clarification he repeated the exact same thing he has in his description. I had told him that if he felt more comfortable in Italian then to go ahead and explain is issues with the vatican in Italian (I know all to well what it's like to try to express yourself in a language that you don't have full mastery of) but he decided to plod on in English. OK fine, none of these things address the final points I had made, so I pressed him again:

What I am trying to understand is whether or not you accept the fact that the Vatican is hypocritical. It always has been and this is nothing new. It was a Pope that ordered the crusades, and it was a Pope that told the world that they shouldn't have happened. It was a Pope that supported the persecution of certain people in WWII and it was a Pope that apologized to those people for his predecessor's actions. The vatican changes their mind ALL THE TIME, I fail to see what is surprising about this. You cannot say it is "impossible" to do so, the very fact that it has happened so many times is, by definition, what demonstrates that it is very possible indeed. You can say that it is impossible without being hypocritical, and I would agree with you on that, but that seems to be besides the point since we have already established that the Catholic Church is hypocritical all the time. Also I feel you have not provided your reasons for believing that these reneissance principles have become "catholic legacy", which is why I have provisionally responded to your questions on the supposition that they have, though I don't know whether that is even a false statement or not. Once again this could be an issue of semantics: just because an institution (like the Vatican) no longer persecutes people for believing something does NOT mean that that belief has become a "legacy" of that institution.

He had this to respond:

Dear CrystalEye736
I understand we are saying almost the same things.

Beware because often, is not the one talking the problem, but the one understanding, with his believes and preconceptions.

I will answer to you, there is a video reply in the queue for you but I am very busy and I will do my best to do it this week (ncluding weekend).

I do repeat, I understand your point is critical concerning the Vatican, but that is not enought, there is much more to say you probably never imagined. Exactly the same points that make difficoult for you to understand my words. And please don't confuse Eloquence with Meanings, clear and crystal I express in my videos, if you cannot put it together, the reason is different.

Yes I realize that he included a little jibe in there calling me stupid, but I let it pass. My very first video response! I was curious to see what he had to say and I was more curious to understand where his information was coming from. After a few days though, he had this to say:

I am sorry to disappoint you but I didn't realize before that you anonymous on all your web pages. I was to record the video for you during the weekend but I am very busy and for anonymous I have no time at all.

If you like an answer for your questions you have to provide a valid web identity with name and picture.
I do confirm to you, YES, my web identity is clear and transparent (IANA) and my statements concerning the 100 Euro (or dollars) are LEGALLY VALID.(same of a bet).
I am serious on this, but you are anonymous.

Concerning the video I am also disappointed because I really enjoy your questions. You really made clear questions focusing the Italian prejudice and preconception I like to talk about, the italian brainwash, and It was my intention to answer to you "ad hoc" because of the stereotype you clearly stated with your arguing.

If you like to be anonymous, you have to find someone with dignity and guts to ask the questions for you... Ask the professors of the Padova University to came forward for you...

Meanwhile you may have your answers bit by bit in my old videos. Start with this, if you pay attention you will find all your questions explained

I felt slimed. It reeks of condescention, so I responded accordingly:

I don't understand what my full name or a picture of my face has to do with answering me, or thinking that my questions are valid. I could invent a name and put a random picture in my profile and you would have no idea if that was really me or not. Welcome to the internet.

If you don't have time or want to answer me that's fine, but please don't invent such a pathetic excuse. Questions have merit based on their content, not who asks them. If my same exact words came out of a Professor's mouth they would be no more or no less worth answering. 

Thank you for showing your true, patronizing colors.

  Today, he fired back with this:

well your answers are not really valid as you believe, and if anybody is patronizing anything, that is not me, you can post it on your blog.

You are correct the questions have nothing to do vith personal identity, but anonymous are last.

The reason is that all my videos are dedicated to the anonymous surfer of the YouTube and I am not to do video reply for anonymous... You could have 10 anonymous blogs and ask me 10 video reply... be serious... !!!

When I will have finished the video I am doing, I will be back to explain ONE of your supposed "valid answers".

Meanwhile I have sent you an old video with the answers to your questions.

Ha!! William Lane Craig would be proud. Notice that I never asked him for a video response, all I wanted was for him to cite his sources and explain himself just a tad more clearly. Notice that he was the one telling me that he "enjoyed" my "questions", but then spun it to seem that I was giving my statements unjust validity. Notice he told me to go find a Professor whose skirts I could hide behind and only then would he deign to answer me, and then turns around and tells me it's simply because he doesn't have the time of day to answer everyone that is clamouring for his attention. I wonder how he would validate people's youtube channels to make sure that those 10 people asking for his response were not just pseudonyms of the same person? Avoiding that kind of internet stalking was the precise reason I decided not to post my full name in the first place. 

Not to mention the fact that he's the one who sent me the challenge in the first place, asking me to respond.

I will be looking at the videos he sent me over the weekend and if I find that they're not repeating the same exact phrases as his innane overdrammatic questions (I should have known better, when anyone refers to anything as a holocaust other than the actual holocaust be on your guard for conspiracy theory) I might have something more to add. It is then that I'll decide whether or not to add another dead horse  to the pile.

No comments:

Post a Comment