THe point being you cannot simply stereotype people based on their occupation. It isn't in any way reliable.

Whenever you attribute a character trait to anyone based on anything other than their actual character it's by definition a stereotype.

What you've done with this guy is take a look at the evidence and said "Yeah well whatever, He's a Pope so THAT tells me more about him than anyone who actually observed his behavior"

Go to Mexico or South America and see how he is worshipped. The US and Europe (sans Italy) are not indicative of how "good" Catholics are based on what their leader says.

@ CA

"THe point being you cannot simply stereotype people based on their occupation. It isn't in any way reliable"

Yes you can, and yes it is. Your choice of occupation is one of the most important choices we make in life. There are few better yardsticks by which to judge a man's character.

"What you've done with this guy is take a look at the evidence and said "Yeah well whatever, He's a Pope so THAT tells me more about him than anyone who actually observed his behavior""

I judge people by their actions. I give the action of becoming Cardinal and then Pope quite a lot of weight. I give the action of a liking for cooking his own food and a dislike of living in a palace very little weight.

@CA - Just let it go. Oct is a self-admitted hater of Catholic leadership and wouldn't have given Mother Teresa a fair shake if she had ever been appointed as pope.

"Yes you can, and yes it is. Your choice of occupation is one of the most important choices we make in life. There are few better yardsticks by which to judge a man's character."
@ Octavious

I see. I'm dealing with a person who thinks "All lawyers are crooks" is the absolute literal truth about every single member of the legal profession?

"I judge people by their actions. I give the action of becoming Cardinal and then Pope quite a lot of weight. I give the action of a liking for cooking his own food and a dislike of living in a palace very little weight."

The problem is that becoming (rather being appointed) a Cardinal is not the action of the apointee, neither is being elected Pope the action of the Pope. It's the action of the College of Cardinals.

On the other hand cooking his own meals when he does not have too, and living in a flat when better accomodations are available for free, are choices made by the man himself.

@ Octavious

I'm curious I've heard

"All teachers are incompetent and lazy & just drawing a paycheck"

and I've also heard


"Teachers are not in it for the money; they love kids and love to teach"


Now I've met teachers that fit into either category.

Are these stereotypes faulty and you have all the correct ones? How do we know which ones are reliable? If one's choice of teacher is such a reliable yardstick of their character?

@ CA

Yes, both of those are faulty. Isn't it obvious? Use your brain, man.

Conclusions you can draw about people who are teachers

1/ They are not interested or they lack the ability to earn vast amounts of money
2/ They are university educated (this varies with age and country)
3/ They do not hate children (at least the ones who haven't been teachers for long. Older ones may have become bitter, but not many)
4/ etc etc

You can draw a vast number of conclusions from someone who says they are a teacher. Some are a certainty (such as 1) others merely likely. You know which ones are realiable by using your brain. If you use other people's conclusions you've read in a newspaper without applying any thought you are an idiot.

@ Draug

The word hate is often misused. I'd assumed it was just an annoying habit of the American Left. Thank you for showing me my error.

How about extreme dislike?

@ Draug

Strong suspicion is perhaps more accurate. Combined with mild dislike for recent actions. I would have an extreme dislike for the Catholic Church of old, but they no longer exist.

@ Octavious - I think we're finally on to something with your post about conclusions we can draw about teachers. How about if you give us the conclusions you draw about cardinals? I suspect you're drawing different conclusions than some of the rest of us, and I bet your conclusions are all fairly uncharitable...but maybe you can surprise me?

@ Octavious

"If you use other people's conclusions you've read in a newspaper without applying any thought you are an idiot."

Oh the delicious irony! Now, I’m supposed to be the one not thinking for himself.
As to your statement, I would agree, that's the point I'm trying to get you to understand. It's also why I've deliberately avoided making any statement about his character at all. Simply put, I don't know yet, and neither do you. My entire argument is to point out the stereotype that you are using. All I’m basically saying is “So What? We just met the guy, why not give him a chance?”

My statements about him were:

"The guy's been pope less than a day. I'm thus far pleased to find that he doesn't fit your stereotype. "

-and-

“Right now, I don't know the guy. He may be a great pope. He might be a disastrous one. I certainly have no more interest in digging up whatever I can on him as any other world leader on inauguration day.”

Notice the “thus far” and the “right now” showing a willingness and open-mindedness to embrace actual evidence to the contrary. If your idea of “thought” goes no further than “He’s a pope; he can’t be humble.” our definitions of the word are too far apart to really warrant us both using it the same thing.

@ Flem

Cardinals? Fair enough... I'll fire out a few

1/ They are Catholic
2/ They believe that the hierachy of the Catholic Church is generally a good thing
3/ They have a strong desire to teach and lead.
4/ They have great condfidence in their core spiritual beliefs
5/ They believe they can do the most good from positions of power
6/ They believe they are part of God's plan

@ Oct - sweet, you surprised me. Nothing uncharitable at all. Also nothing incompatible with humility. Why did we have this argument?

@ Flem

Focusing on those which can be applied to humility, getting to be Pope requires a desire for power, complete confidence that you are right in your beliefs, a desire to spread your beliefs to others, a desire to impose your morals on others, and a belief that you are better suited to the job than the other cardinals. I would not say that individually any of those are completely incompatible with humility (some are more than others) but together they are a pretty big pointer (to me at least) that a truly humble person is unlikely to get anywhere near the job.

Also, why were you expecting me to be uncharitable? I have said repeatedly in this thread (from the start) that we will not know how good/bad a Pope he is until he has done stuff. The only criticism I have made was of his balcony speech which I didn't find too inspiring. I have said I don't believe he is humble, but have said (again repeatedly) that I don't see being humble or not as a good measure of a Pope.

For reasons I don't understand various people have jumped on to a "Stop Oct attacking Catholics" bandwagon despite the fact that I've done nothing of the sort.