It's one of the cheapest and most effective tools we have to combat the spread of the virus.

and simply acted as decent, compassionate human beings.

I wonder how many more Catholics would have acted like decent, compassionate human beings if their church wasn't teaching them that homosexuals are violating "natural law" and sinning?

I was in elementary school when the AIDS epidemic began, so I'm afraid there wasn't much I *could* do.

Why are you reluctant to talk about the religious aspects of this topic, when you posted it in the Religion group?

Perhaps you should have posted it somewhere else if you didn't want people to talk about religion.

What did most people do?

Nothing.

You posted it in the Religion group. Why did you do that if you didn't want anyone to talk about religion?

As MM is fond of saying, start another thread.

Haver fun reading about whataboutism.

What discussion are you allowing instead? Reminder: you posted in the Religion group.

Are you literally unable to admit that good was done?

If so, what does that say about your claimed desire for dialogue?

It's in the Religion group. Surely you posted it here for a reason. What is the reason?

Why are you falsely accusing me of whataboutism when I am asking about the very topic of this group?

Meanwhile no organization on earth is more responsible for the AIDS epidemic than the RCC. They have campaigned the world over against the distribution of condoms which are the most effective defense we have against the disease.

But yeah, you can’t talk about the RCC and AIDS in a thread about the RCC and AIDS because of the whatabout, at least according to the most prolific whataboutist in this group.

I knew people who contracted HIV and had AIDS. They were friends of mine. I continued my friendship with them, drove them to appointments with health care professionals, brought them food when they were sick, and tried to comfort them when they were dying. That was before there were treatments for HIV infections. An AIDS diagnosis was a death sentence, then. I even knew one Catholic priest who died of AIDS during that period. I met him in a hospital.

It was hard to find medical people who would help them in the 1980s. It was hard to find people who were willing to be near them. Ambulance drivers put on hazmat suits to handle them for transport. It was easy, though, to find people who condemned them, shunned them, avoided them, and were glad when they died.

What did you do, Monsieur B? Did you ignore the problem, like most people did at the time?

You're asking people what they did, so answer your own question, please. What did you do?

Please do not ask question you are unwilling to answer. Thanks.

So yes, it is "old".

He's calling the article he posted old, which it is. But has the RCC position changed since then?

I understand your need to attack anything that is posted that might present theists in a positive light.

I asked you what the RCC's position was on the use of condoms, which prevent the spread of AIDS. Do you know?

A charge that you love to make even when it does not apply.

Ironic that you would engage in it here.

If you wish, start your own post about this topic.

You posted it in the Religion group, meaning you think the religious aspect of the article is important.

I asked a question about that religion's teachings.

You illustrate again that you don't know what "whataboutism" means.

I understand why you are unwilling to answer my question, though.

I must bookmark this for the next time you incorrectly raise that charge.

And one of us does not know what the term actually means.

I suggest that you Google the term to avoid making the mistake again.

Yup, I agree with that statement.

This could help:

Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject ("What about the economy?&quot to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.

And by quoting that, you demonstrate that you are the one who doesn't understand the term.

Let this be a teaching moment:

I posted about theists helping AIDS victims.

You, not liking the idea of a positive post about theists, responded with" but what about...etc".

And that is classic whataboutism.

In doing so, those Catholics were going against the teachings of their own church.

I think that's worthy of discussion, particularly here in the Religion group. You do not, and would rather attack me.

Why?

was an example of the whataboutism fallacy?

You are simply wielding "whataboutism" as a club to silence viewpoints you don't want to see expressed.

For what must be at least the 200th time I've told you, this is the Religion group. From the SoP: "Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted."

You posted about a small group of religious people doing a good thing.

I asked a question about their religion, to discuss whether their religion directed them to do this or not. Because religion, religious motivations, and religious doctrine are ON TOPIC here. (The Chinese government, not so much.)

You scream "WHATABOUTISM."

Is this dialog? Work on that, g.

Perhaps take a course in debate.

Thanks for showing everyone how a Christian behaves, g.

Rather odd that someone would actually believe they are some kind of victim when asked a question about their (former?) religion victimizing others. Kinda sounds familiar.

But the irony was unintentional, I am certain.

asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts in this group, have become less numerous. Have his legions of fans lost interest in the goings-on in the Religion Group? Is he desperately trying to rekindle their ardor with these latest crazed performances?

Performance art needs an audience.

or are we just going to see more reruns.

He hasn't tried those canards in quite a while.

So unless he's going to become a one-note performer with his laughable "whataboutism" charge on everyone else, he's going to have to come up with something new to keep the audience engaged.

It's a shame that if he just acted with alleged "Christian" values such as compassion, tolerance, and refraining from judging others, he'd likely have a much better experience here and wouldn't have to relegate himself to this pathetic shtick. He's clearly intelligent enough to engage in actual dialog, so why doesn't he want to?

Goes to show what having hope for improvement will get ya.

and the first to engage in whataboutism.

What would MM say?

But it set the tone, so to speak, for the choir.

You're recycling the choir schtick?

That shit was hilarious.

There's a difference between good faith discussion and giving a sermon. It's kind of like the difference between talking with Noam Chomsky and a streetcorner preacher.

He has a limited set of arguments to make, so he tends to get repetitive with them.

The congregation is getting bored, I'm sure.

I think you may have misspelled 'fallacies'.

fallacies with arguments, certainly.

Then when bullshit is called on the fallacy, there's always gaslighting. To be fair though, imagining a entire fan club that doesn't know the difference has to be something of a challenge in an of itself.

But we don't actually sing together. Each of us is singing a different song.

Argie-Bargie!

Someone is pulling on all the canned replies. Must be having a meltdown over the latest train wreck thread.

Why are you accusing me of whataboutism when I'm staying on the topic of this group?

Please explain.

back then with AIDs sufferers. In every group of people, some did the same. Others ignored HIV. However, the official Roman Catholic Church did not do that. Instead it shunned LGBTQ people, sometimes even prohibiting Catholics from the Eucharist. Officially and institutionally, gays and lesbians were shunned by the RCC. It was one of the most shameful episodes in that period of time. I remember it well, and knew people who received that kind of treatment from the church they had been in all their lives.

You know that, I'm sure. But, you're trying to expand the efforts of a few Catholics into a false view of the church's real attitude and treatment of people who contracted HIV.

I think that's a shamefully deceptive thing to do. You might think otherwise.

Why is it a "secret history?" That's easy. It was kept as a secret within the Church, because the Church condemned LGBTQ people on a regular basis, and would not have approved.

The people doing good are the ones who bucked their church, whose humanity and compassion OVERRODE their religious instruction and the official position of their church.

Curious that guillaumeb would post this in the Religion group and refuse to allow anyone to ask about the religious aspects of it.

still continuing attitudes toward alternative sexual behavior. Maybe he doesn't remember those times. Or maybe he didn't actually read the entire article from which he posted a minimal excerpt. I don't know.

Why he'd expect to post about some clergy and associates who went against official church policy and not start a discussion of that particular denomination of Christianity, I also don't know.

'Tis a puzzlement...

According to Monsieur B, he is old enough to remember. I remember, and I'm only a few years older than he claims to be.

Odd, that. I wonder what his actual point was for posting this fragment? I can't figure it out.

That when people do good things, we should credit their religion and the fact that they are theists.

Even if when doing those good things, they are going against their religion and what their religion teaches their god wants.

As I said, there were (and are) people of all sorts who helped people with AIDS back then and now, regardless of what church they went to or no church at all. It's because they're good people regardless of what their church teaches. Some people are full of compassion and free of bigotry, regardless of their religious beliefs. What those people were doing to help had nothing to do with Catholicism or "theism." It was just good, caring people doing what good, caring people do.

And so it is and has always been. Some priests I have known have been caring, compassionate people. Others have sexually molested children. It has nothing to do with their religious affiliations. Nothing whatsoever. They'd have been that way, regardless.

Monsieur B. likes to point out such good, caring people and attribute their attitudes to their beliefs. At the same time, he decries anyone pointing out people who are doing terrible things, and who are also religious. The difference between the caring people who helped AIDS patients and the child molesters is that the organized Roman Catholic Church didn't like what the caring people were doing. At the same time, it was hiding child-abusing priests from exposure and shipping them around to other parishes to do the same things there. You'd think it approved of the child abuse, but not the compassionate care for the ill.

In one case, the Church did not support those who were caring for people who had a disease, but did support people who were sexually abusing children. So, the church is involved in support, but not with the good group. Instead, it supported those who were causing harm.

Monsieur B. doesn't understand the difference between the two behaviors by the RCC, apparently. The rest of us understand that he has convinced himself that the church is good for society. He will hear no evidence to the contrary.

But you are convinced by your own narrative.

perhaps the fault is yours.

It's reasonable to consider the possibility that the problem is you.

Don't you think it's odd how everyone else manages to make their meaning clear to the other participants in this group? You are the only one who consistently has this issue. Have you ever stopped to wonder why?

But keep building that narrative, and confusing a tiny few with "everyone".

All part of keeping harmony in that small group, correct?

Interesting how, when I post outside of the Religion Group, this supposed misunderstanding rarely occurs.

Almost as if some very few here have an agenda that includes attacking theists and creating misunderstanding.

Remember all the times you've dismissed others' points of view by calling them "confused"?

Here, let me refresh your memory:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=313284
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=313140
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=313006
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=307252
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=310602
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=310596
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304222
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=295988
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=294478
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=289288
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=289074
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=288900
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=288895
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=287999
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=287373
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=286552
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=284415
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283706
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283585
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283574
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283554
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283545
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280702
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=279686
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=279439
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=279431
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=279429
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=278963
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=278912

And that's only going back a year.

Why can you not simply admit that good work was done?

Are you unable to admit it?

Or do these posts conflict with your goal for the Religion Group?

But was it because of their religion?

Why are you attacking me for simply asking that?

When a priest rapes a child and the RCC engages in a conspiracy to conceal the crime, that is just "human behavior".

When a Catholic helps a dying AIDS patient even after the RCC exacerbated the disease, religion gets the credit.

But you still felt compelled to add some hyperbole.

Now, work on that.

Now answer my question. Did they do it because of their religion?

And divert from the article as fast as possible.

So what is your motive for doing so? Why, to enable the diversion and the general attack on theists. We can all figure it out.

And when you discover what you believe to be this truth, make it the subject of a post.

With appropriate documentation, of course.

mainly because your claim of a false view is refuted by the actual article, and my bolded statements.

In fact, your best in this thread.

Just another hilariously offensive blip on an uninterrupted hilariously offensive trend.

Is there no depth to which you won't sink?

You might like my June 6 post as well.

You should apologize for posting offensive bullshit.

if you post a new thread, you can police what people respond and demand everyone accepts the narrative you want.

Any disagreement is either from confusion or "whataboutism"

If anyone posts on a specific topic, and a few respond with variants of the "what about this...", that is diversion and thus whataboutism as well.

Instead of EVER doing a bit of self-reflection.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=313284
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=313140
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=313006
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=307252
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=310602
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=310596
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304222
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=295988
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=294478
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=289288
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=289074
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=288900
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=288895
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=287999
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=287373
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=286552
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=284415
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283706
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283585
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283574
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283554
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=283545
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=280702
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=279686
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=279439
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=279431
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=279429
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=278963
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=278912

The article wasn't about people helping AIDS victims. It was about Catholics helping them.
It is warranted to point out how the Catholic Church did in fact make the AIDS crisis worse and still do in their efforts to fight condom distribution in countries ravaged by AIDS.

It appears that any opposition to your posts is met with claims of whatabout or confusion. It also appears you are the only only one who considers them so.

You're in the choir now for sure.

and to ask what about a different topic.

don't see it that way.

Why was the article about Catholics and AIDS? Why did you post it in the religion forum?

Were you making any point about Catholics and AIDS? IF not, what point were you trying to make.

And why would a discussion about Catholics and Aids not be worthwhile?

If you wrote on that topic, that would be different.

But this article is not a complete history of the RCC. It is about some theists and the AIDS issue.

Just like my posts about Chinese repression of theists are not intended to be a definitive history of China.

not "theists"

But the post was limited to those in the RCC who gave comfort to the AIDS victims.

people with AIDS. Surely you remember those theists, too, right?

Therefore it seems logical that it would bring up a discussion about Catholics and AIDS, including the Catholic Church. That would be very pertinent.

Maybe the next time you post a thread, you should list the allowable subjects for replies.

Gil's OP: The secret history of Catholic caregivers and the AIDS epidemic.

Good: How wonderful!
Good: We should all be grateful!
Good: Theists are the best!

These kinds of responses are unacceptable:

Bad: Why were there so few of them?
Bad: Why did they have to keep their activities secret?
Bad: Why did the Church oppose the most effective measure to prevent the spread of HIV?

Etc.

transmission rates. (Such as condoms.)

You: (Apropos of nothing) "Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus was a great senator and a capable military general during the Gallic wars, that served the empire loyally for most of his professional career, and particularly during the Republican Civil War, during which he built a fleet from scratch in 30 days to support his then-commander, Julius Caesar, in the blockade and capture of Massilia."

Another poster: "But he did conspire to murder, and personally lured Julius Caesar directly to his assassination that one time."

You: 'WHATABOUTISM!'

exunt

...and failing. Next comes the gaslighting.

Who or what did these people have to hide their actions from?

I predict this answer: "I didn't write that headline. What about that?"

The correct answer is likely "I didn't write that headline. WHATABOUT THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT??"

while the church itself went on to MAKE SURE AIDS spread far and wide in Africa for decades and killed millions.

Some individual Catholics did something good. That's not surprising. There are good, kind, loving people in almost all groups. Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Hierarchy relied on doctrine and made very bad decisions for people, both Catholic and non-Catholic.

The RCCs paranoia about contraception cost many people their lives. They could have done the compassionate thing, but did not.

Jesus wept.

because they are statistically more recruit-able.
It's all about the revenue.

Or to put it another way; follow the money.

The Pope and his Cardinals and Bishops have one set of priorities. Those are very different, in many cases, from the concerns of, say, a parish priest. The Vatican does not deal with individual people. It deals with populations of people. The parish priest deals with people individually and in groups no larger than his congregation.

It's a lot like political civil governments. Different issues arise at different levels of the organization.

When I refer to the "RCC", I'm referring to policy-makers, so mostly Archbishop and above.

Deacons, Priests, and for the most part Bishops are just doing what they are told.

She praised the suffering people endured, because it brought them closer to Jesus.

It makes sense when you consider that a lot of RCC theology arose during a time when kings and aristocracy had to figure out a way to keep the peasants in their place, and the church was only too happy to help.

She wasn't interested in doing any suffering herself.

Clearly she was already as close to Jesus as a person can be; there was no need for her to suffer! /s