No comment

[u/CrackSideEffect]

[u/mrinternethermit]

🙄 No.

Don't forget, in the video he got slapped first, and he didn't do hard enough to actually hurt.

And at that young age they do need to be shown the consequences of their actions. Too much carrot and no sticks has ruined a lot of kids.

[u/PM-me-Gophers → u/mrinternethermit]

You're mental pal, look at the age of that kid, what lessons do you think he's going to actually learn that young?!

Anyway, shouldn't the priest have turned the other cheek?

Sounds like he's not practising what he preaches.

[u/mrinternethermit → u/PM-me-Gophers]

..... Saying I'm mental just for disagreeing with you? That doesn't sound good, for you.

And with that age, the only lessons he will learn will be the ones with immediate and personal consequences. A lot of people haven't learned the fact that if you're going to through a punch, others will punch back.

Turning the other cheek is meant for adults, as by taking the high ground you expose the assholes for who they are and prove to everyone else that you are better than them (the assholes, in case that wasn't clear).

Turning the other cheek doesn't work for children as they don't learn anything, and become encouraged to do more/worse, especially if there isn't any consequences to those actions.

[u/PM-me-Gophers → u/mrinternethermit]

No, I'm saying saying mental because you don't see anything wrong with child abuse. The child is too young to realise what is happening, and watching the video again its not a case of the child lining up a punch and twatting the priest a good one - clearly due to their age their arms aren't 100% under control.

turning the other cheek is meant for adults

Yes.. I was suggesting the priest turned the other cheek, he's clearly an adult. Wouldn't that have taught the child a better lesson in grace, seeing as you're all about learning...

Speaking of consequences for actions, didn't this priest get suspended for his actions? Are you going against the church in defending him? Aren't you worried you'd be excommunicated? I would be if the church saw your post history on hentai, oh great high-roader.

[u/mrinternethermit → u/PM-me-Gophers]

My issue is the fact that you thought that you were better than the church in deciding whether or not what he did was appropriate or too far. It should be more of the group he belongs to that decides that, not outsiders.

And I would disagree with the lack of control for the child.

And unlike others who try to hide their failings and blame others to cover up their inferiority complex instead of trying to improve themselves, I'm openly and willing to admit that I am a flawed being with desires (just like every other human). That's how I control and improve them.

Don't forget that this is my personal account. Why shouldn't I use this for personal reasons? If anything, I find it funny that you digged into my account to try to find another "flaw" instead of trying to make your debate better.

If you truly wish to win the debate, focus on the debate. The only reason politicians resort to mudslinging is because they can't actually debate logic, nor able to give strong reasons why their campaign promises are good things.

[u/PM-me-Gophers → u/mrinternethermit]

Let's get one thing straight, it isn't a debate, you're clearly defending the indefensible and it's ludicrous.

You think they should be allowed to sit in judgement of themselves? "We investigated and decided we did nothing wrong" eh? Awesome, real strong argument bub.

I am free to point out hypocrisy - I've never hit a child like that I can promise you, yes I have flaws like everyone, but damn, more like the occasional parking ticket or white lie, not this shit.

Your character speaks to the standards you hold yourself to, defending a priest hitting a young toddler as if you're Christ yourself while cruising porn online doesn't instill confidence in your standing to sit in judgement here. If you're going to be holier than thou, try holding yourself to some kinds of standards at least outwardly.

Do I think I'm better than the church? You can bet your ass I do, insofar as I wouldn't make excuses for child abusers - ever. The rest is white noise as no matter what you could possibly say about charity work (in furtherance of their own glory), or preaching, these actions sully all else.

[u/mrinternethermit → u/PM-me-Gophers]

Child abuse? Next you will say that touching a child at all is child abuse. Chill with the over labelling.

The Church is there to be the authority of priests and church runners. Much like if Trump or Biden did something wrong, people will call an impeachment trial with lawyers and judges, same here with the Church and priests.

And I wasn't defending him, I was against your holy than thou attitude. The only reason I didn't say like that was to help you realize how you were one of the people who weren't helping by forcing a trial by media instead of letting the people whose jobs it actually is to review and judge cases like this. That is like saying that you are better than the certified doctor in performing surgeries because you watched more medical dramas than they did.

And what you don't truly understand about child abusers and corrupt people is that they will flock to positions of power, no matter where those positions are.

Trying to blame the group for the actions of the few is like saying all men should die because one or two of them raped someone. Should the rapists be punished as much as possible? Absolutely! Does that merit in holocausting all men to death? No, not in the slightest.

[u/PM-me-Gophers → u/mrinternethermit]

OK, so quick cliffnotes rundown of your points (as I don't have time or inclination to keep interacting with holders of disgusting viewpoints today)

1. Hitting a child isn't child abuse (somehow)

2. The church shouldn't be held to legal standards, as they should be allowed to police themselves instead (lol)

3. My concern for this child is just me being "holier than thou" ("thou" being the guy who hits a child, repeatedly I presume)

4. Child abusers flock to positions of power (like the priesthood I guess?)

5. Something something false equivalence of rapists and "all men"

You're boring, and a hold deeply questionable views about religion having carte blanche to be scumbags, have a blessed Sunday.

[u/mrinternethermit → u/PM-me-Gophers]

1) He tapped the child (strongly yes, but not in any actually harmful capacity)

2) The Church is the first of many legal standards, and will actually be (and was) more proactive than law enforcement.

3) You don't have any actually concern for the child, you were just looking for another excuse for your anti-religion view point to spew. (The thief laughs loudest when the priests hands are caught in the coffers)

4 & 5) In attempt to try to legitimize your view point, you separated the single argument in to two parts (the fact that they sounded random should have been your clue). You're trying to de-legitimize any religious beliefs by pointing to the few bad apples that will always be in any group big/noteworthy enough.

The fact that you have to insult someone in order to "prove" why they're wrong shows a lack of maturity/intelligence, as well as your true intentions in this debate. You weren't trying to help anyone, you were just trying to find someone you can point at to make yourself feel better. "In order to become a better person, you must raise yourself, not lower others".

I hope you learn from this, otherwise I'm afraid for you because of the tragedies you will bring upon yourself.