BBC doco exposes Catholic church selling babies

Up to 300,000 Spanish babies were stolen from their parents and sold for adoption over a period of five decades, a new investigation reveals.

The children were trafficked by a secret network of doctors, nurses, priests and nuns in a widespread practice that began during General Franco’s dictatorship and continued until the early Nineties.

Hundreds of families who had babies taken from Spanish hospitals are now battling for an official government investigation into the scandal.

Several mothers say they were told their first-born children had died during or soon after they gave birth.
Source

REMOVE THIS AND THE LINE BELOW BEFORE PUBLISHING
Image:

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share This

25 comments

  1. Up_All_Night

    Blink;1692990 wrote: As opposed to a made up one, like we have here in Australia.

    And so the transformation into Andrew Bolt is complete.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. Blink

    Up_All_Night;1692999 wrote: And so the transformation into Andrew Bolt is complete.

    You mean like your transformation into a left wing Nodbugger? How exciting. We’re both growing as people! Surprised you’re not down camping out in Martin Plc UANoddy.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. Blink

    Up_All_Night;1693054 wrote: The Noddy thing just makes you look desperate, it’s not clever or apt.

    What’s going on in Martin Place?

    Desperate…you mean like you adding words in your sig until it matches what you think it should be? That kind of desperate?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  4. Up_All_Night

    Oh so this is what that stick up your arse has been about.

    It all makes sense. I just paraphrased the argument with those eight words at the end. It’s not even the most damning part about what you, i’m sorry leonid said.

    If this is behind you’re spazed out hissy fits lately, fine i’ll remove it and just keep the direct quote where it was argued I was wrong for referring to scientists and their science.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  5. Leonid

    Edit: Forget it…

    I’m trying to move beyond this idiocy, especially as UAN is far better at it than me and brings me down to his level…

    All I’ll say is this:
    “Stolen Generations” is a term coined in the 70s. It is not reflective of the reality. An entire generation did not get stolen, not even close. Nor were there too many documented cases of children being taken to stamp out the Aboriginal colour/blood. There were some-to-lots, of this I have no doubt – Australia was not a beacon of hope in the whirlpool of past Western policies as regards “lesser civilised” inhabitants of claimed territory… but a lot of Aborigines claiming to have been stolen were actually “removed” because they were mistreated according to European standards of treatment of children. Not because of who they were, but because of what was done to them by their parents.

    Unfortunately this is an emotive topic and I’ll no doubt get called “racist”.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  6. Up_All_Night

    WAAAAAAAAAAH the big bad man on the internet said I was wrong because most scientists disagree with my conclusions. WAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!

    This was gone through plenty in the past. I was an idiot and wrong for differing to experts, to scientists, to the scientific community. As opposed not listening to you and what ‘you’ personally understand and think. What you think the state of the science is. The lack of value placed on the experts.

    That’s all this was about and the point was made many times over many months.

    I have that quote with a link to the thread, where anyone can go and read it. The simple point is, referring to me as having a limited intellectual capacity because for things I am not experts on, I can know my limitations and defer to the experts. Looking at that thread, referring to me as anti-science because I defer to the scientific communities opinions. Instead of relying solely on my personal opinion on the science. It’s laughable. Go back and read it.

    That also happened a long time after I had given up trying to explain the errors in your posts, and began pointing out you’re not an expert. Scientists have skills, knowledge and experience much more developed and advanced than yours. Where even if you think you can make a cogent argument against climate change. It’d be actually fairly irrelevant as long as you’re some non expert posting on the internet. There’d be no reason to trust your analysis over the experts.

    This was the point you failed to grasp and lead to a lot of the insults on my intelligence. That I wasn’t coming from a position where I believed I had surveyed all the evidence and come to a conclusion. Just that I had read about the subject, have an understanding of what the science says. It was coming at it from two different angles. There was a failure to grasp the direction I was coming from and so, I am an idiot.

    Some other posts in the thread addressing your doesn’t matter what scientists think line.

    Scythe;1665523 wrote: Actually, it’s not irrelevant at all, provided the community has expertise relevant to the topic. An educated series of hypotheses from people who know the field carries weight, even when the claims cannot be unquestioningly proven.

    It’s a matter of trust, and I choose to trust the majority of scientific opinion when it comes to a highly complex and technical field like climate science, which requires years of study to even partially understand.

    Tyrany;1665531 wrote: Further to what Scythe has said, some scientific theories will always be theories but that doesn’t mean they are worthless. For example, even if experiments and research finally show that a Big Bang can indeed produce a universe, it doesn’t mean that this is unequivocally what produced our universe.

    I think DT once said it on here – proof is for mathematicians and distillers. Everyone else uses evidence and reasonable conclusions based upon said evidence.

    Which then of course lead to a whole lot less used of the Leonid handle around this place.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  7. Leonid

    UAN, I’m curious… you and I believe in the same thing since we’re both atheists – we both believe science can provide the answers for what we observe in the natural world.

    That’s correct, right?

    Where you and I differ is that you seem to take as gospel said by some people, and I prefer to look beyond what they said and to what actually has some good solid evidence behind it.

    I’m going to defer to the well-known Climate Change denier and scientist Isaac Asimov:

    Don’t you believe in flying saucers, they ask me? Don’t you believe in telepathy? — in ancient astronauts? — in the Bermuda triangle? — in life after death?

    No, I reply.

    No, no, no, no, and again no.

    One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out “Don’t you believe in anything?”

    “Yes”, I said. “I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I’ll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”

    (Asimove believed in global warming, but he was nowhere near as crazy as you are)

    So simply:
    1. I believe climate change is happening because that is it’s default function
    2. I believe humans cause climate change because we are part of the climate system
    3. I believe we are having a deleterious effect on the biosphere through local/regional activity
    4. I agree that adding extra CO2 (which we do) warms the planet
    5. I disagree that we know what happens next as a cause of said warming, with any certainty beyond a shot in the dark.
    6. I think the likes of Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Clive Hamilton could learn a lesson from FOX News in checking their facts, because even FOX News is head and shoulders above them in not predicting the unpredictable.
    7. I entirely disagree that the science is settled on any single point of the AGW theory (except the binary data such as “adding extra CO2=more warming potential”), nor that the theory as it stands, is rigorously checked by experimentation, observation or repetition of calculations from primary data.
    8. I entirely disagree with any form of carbon taxation as there is not a single shred of proof linking the giving of polymer plastic to the government, to any measurable improvement in average weather over a time-span.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  8. Blink

    Up_All_Night;1693107 wrote: Oh so this is what that stick up your arse has been about.

    It all makes sense. I just paraphrased the argument with those eight words at the end. It’s not even the most damning part about what you, i’m sorry leonid said.

    If this is behind you’re spazed out hissy fits lately, fine i’ll remove it and just keep the direct quote where it was argued I was wrong for referring to scientists and their science.

    You seem to have no sense of irony. I claim you’re turning into a left-wing nodbugger which is “not clever or apt and makes you look desperate” and then later you claim I have turned into Andrew Bolt or in the post I’m quoting, an alt of Leonid (or are you accusing him of being my alt?).

    As for addressing the sig thing – I just don’t see why, if you consider something someone says stupid enough to enshrine in your sig, you have to make up things they didn’t say…it’s just childish. For further examples of childishness refer to your post under Leonids. The line starting “WAAAAAAAAHH” is a sterling example. Either clean up your act or shut the hell up while the grown-ups are talking.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  9. Ceilingcat

    Blink;1693132 wrote: You seem to have no sense of irony. I claim you’re turning into a left-wing nodbugger which is “not clever or apt and makes you look desperate” and then later you claim I have turned into Andrew Bolt or in the post I’m quoting, an alt of Leonid (or are you accusing him of being my alt?).

    As for addressing the sig thing – I just don’t see why, if you consider something someone says stupid enough to enshrine in your sig, you have to make up things they didn’t say…it’s just childish. For further examples of childishness refer to your post under Leonids. The line starting “WAAAAAAAAHH” is a sterling example. Either clean up your act or shut the hell up while the grown-ups are talking.

    Schooled!

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  10. Up_All_Night

    Leonid;1693123 wrote:
    So simply:
    1. I believe climate change is happening because that is it’s default function

    Never in dispute. How brave of you to come out and admit that.

    Leonid;1693123 wrote:
    2. I believe humans cause climate change because we are part of the climate system

    Well you spent many years on here arguing they only do a little

    Leonid;1693123 wrote:
    3. I believe we are having a deleterious effect on the biosphere through local/regional activity

    Separate Issue

    Leonid;1693123 wrote:
    4. I agree that adding extra CO2 (which we do) warms the planet

    Only after years of arguing that CO2 couldn’t be warming the planet any more than it is due to it’s logarithmic effect.

    Leonid;1693123 wrote:
    5. I disagree that we know what happens next as a cause of said warming, with any certainty beyond a shot in the dark.

    Which gets down to your claims that so little is know about the climate we can’t know anything meaniful or make predictions. Rubbishing the models and simulations which is how we know so much about the past. Claiming it’s a shot in the dark is wrong. They are carefully worked out, complex predictions. Which have actually been pretty good so far.

    Leonid;1693123 wrote:
    6. I think the likes of Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Clive Hamilton could learn a lesson from FOX News in checking their facts, because even FOX News is head and shoulders above them in not predicting the unpredictable.

    Unpredictable, getting back to the claims science can’t do its thing with climate. Which further hammers home the point you simply don’t like climate science.

    Leonid;1693123 wrote:
    7. I entirely disagree that the science is settled on any single point of the AGW theory (except the binary data such as “adding extra CO2=more warming potential”), nor that the theory as it stands, is rigorously checked by experimentation, observation or repetition of calculations from primary data.

    No one claims the science is settled on every point. See above comment regarding the years you spent arguing against co2 having more than a tiny impact on climate change. This also gets to the point, the science hasn’t research your standards, your approval. Which as I stated is irrelevant as you’re not an expert. Hence what the whole referenced debate in my signature was about.

    Leonid;1693123 wrote:
    8. I entirely disagree with any form of carbon taxation as there is not a single shred of proof linking the giving of polymer plastic to the government, to any measurable improvement in average weather over a time-span.

    Separate issue again.

    Also it’s going into a straw man that the tax is about improving weather in a certain time span. It is about reducing CO2 emissions and helping a change to cleaner energies. Which the scientists and their science say we need to do sooner rather than later. Which of course it appears you say they don’t know enough to make that claim, which suggests you reject the findings of their work when it comes to climate change and the state of the current climate.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  11. DermottBanana

    Blink;1693198 wrote: Actually when I started writing short stories I used to fuck that one up all the time.

    My partner’s a professional writer, so if I accidentally screw it up in an email, she asks me if I did it deliberately to test her
    I end up faking a lot

    *shrug*

    I got sick of reading Leo & UAN go at it ad nauseum, when we know neither of them’s going to see any kind of middle ground
    So I thought I’d do my small bit to hijack the thread

    :)

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  12. Up_All_Night

    DermottBanana;1693202 wrote:

    I got sick of reading Leo & UAN go at it ad nauseum, when we know neither of them’s going to see any kind of middle ground
    So I thought I’d do my small bit to hijack the thread

    :)

    See I have a lot of problem with your post.

    That kind of outlook that there’s always a middle ground to be found, equally valid opinions on both sides is what’s ruined journalism especially when it comes to science journalism. The whole notion of false balance, that opposing viewpoints apparently always have valid arguments.

    There’s always room for healthy skepticism but this is not what goes on. When it comes to science some opinions are way more valid than those of others. It’s why I don’t trust Andrew Bolts opinion on science more than a respected scientist(s). Sadly it seems people don’t seem to think there’s a distinction. It’s all opinions and if there’s different opinions there’s apparently a debate as to what is real.

    It’s like the whole, “teach the controversy” campaign in the USA. Where there’s a push to teach evolution and creationism in science class rooms to let the students view both sides to make up their mind. As if both are equally valid. Creationism got kicked out because it’s not science. There is no middle ground.

    When you’re arguing what is said by the specialized experts in a field, which is all I ever did, against someone who is claiming different based on their personal non expert opinion. There is no middle ground to be found. Especially when that person fails to see a distinction between what they think and what an expert can think.

    That was why towards the end I gave up arguing all the points of the science and focused on just hammering home the point to Leonid that his personal opinion on the science didn’t really matter when compared to what actually experts with more knowledge, education and expertise say.

    Which apparently I’m mentally impaired for thinking. When I read about climate science, I didn’t think I was actually doing science and coming to a scientific conclusion. I just educated myself on the topic, on the work of others. On the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments for and against. Some people like Leonid, fail to understand this concept. They base their views entirely on what they think they understand and come to a conclusion.

    Which of course when it comes to complex subjects, it is then riddled with mistakes and built entirely around their own ignorance. In this google day and age people only seek out and read what they want to. It’s why many people besides me often told him, that if he has the answers that climate scientists don’t, send it off for peer review.

    Seriously what middle ground was there to be found? It’s like arguing with a creationist which used to be another one of my hobbies. There is no middle ground to be found.

    It’s not arguing to find the truth in the middle of it. It’s rebutting false claims and why they are wrong. So with creationists, it’s explaining how we know the earth is 4.5 billion years old, how we know evolution is real ect. Then why claims of evidence to the contrary are wrong. With Leonid, it was trying to explain that it is possible for scientists to have an understanding of the climate enough to determine what is causes climate change both past and present and that through that understanding they can make meaningful predictions.

    I would compromise my own intellectual integrity to try and find a middle ground with such anti-science claims.

    Just look on here, I made a comment based on my personal opinion that I think guns are stupid and people treated it as if I was arguing that as a fact. Maybe the arguments on here some times get a bit heated and immature, but there needs to be a distinction in the world between what is an opinion versus stating a fact. As the saying goes, “you’re entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.” It seems this is lost.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  13. Blink

    Up_All_Night;1693231 wrote:
    Which of course when it comes to complex subjects, it is then riddled with mistakes and built entirely around their own ignorance. In this google day and age people only seek out and read what they want to. It’s why many people besides me often told him, that if he has the answers that climate scientists don’t, send it off for peer review.

    The problem I have with this is that while there are a majority of scientists who are pro-AGW, there is a growing minority who keep finding problems with the models and things the IPCC have claimed. Now, in my opinion if you are posting a paper on anything, let alone something as massive as predicting global climate trends for the next hundred years – you post your paper, formulas and data to basically say “this is how I arrived at my conclusion” and let people try and find errors in it. With global warming and the IPCC you’ve got them actively trying to block people who are skeptical about the whole thing from reviewing, blocking FOI requests, not providing core data…basically doing all they can to prevent anyone who’s not in their ‘inner circle’ from examining what they say. To me, that’s not how it should work. I can’t see why on something as massive as this has the potential to be that people are trying to stifle debate…surely the more debate the better?

    Personally, I agree we should be doing sensible things like moving away from coal fired power (but for me that means nuclear as I’ve yet to see how solar and wind power can generate base load 24 hours a day). Crack down on pollution of waterways and soil, expand recycling…things like that. I personally use water conservatively, use energy saving stuff, recycle and try not to pollute the environment….BUT I am still skeptical of what the IPCC is producing.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  14. Up_All_Night

    Blink;1693409 wrote: The problem I have with this is that while there are a majority of scientists who are pro-AGW, there is a growing minority who keep finding problems with the models and things the IPCC have claimed. Now, in my opinion if you are posting a paper on anything, let alone something as massive as predicting global climate trends for the next hundred years – you post your paper, formulas and data to basically say “this is how I arrived at my conclusion” and let people try and find errors in it. With global warming and the IPCC you’ve got them actively trying to block people who are skeptical about the whole thing from reviewing, blocking FOI requests, not providing core data…basically doing all they can to prevent anyone who’s not in their ‘inner circle’ from examining what they say. To me, that’s not how it should work. I can’t see why on something as massive as this has the potential to be that people are trying to stifle debate…surely the more debate the better?

    See, firstly the growing minority is kind of just a construct from the anti-global warming movement. From the whole manufacture of doubt going on. Also it’s been well document many of those scientists against global warming actually lack relevant expertise in the relevant fields. There’s an issue when you take someone with a vaguely applicable qualification and get their opinion on something for which they do not have a detailed knowledge on, or conducted a detailed review and then some how equate it to being comparable to someone who does have a relevant qualification and has done the research ect.

    From my understanding with climate scientists constantly being under attack from ‘skeptics’ they have become more insular and protected as a result. Which is the only thing they were criticized for in the many independent investigations into Climate Gate ect. I also think the FOI requests thing was around data the scientists had bought from else where and was avaliable but they themselves couldn’t provide it. Then they were constantly getting FOI requests that were part of a campaign to waste their time, instead of doing the science. It was being used as a form of harassment.

    There’s a high level of attack on climate scientists by people who simply don’t want to believe the findings.

    Based on your concerns, it’s actually quite good timing you just posted that.

    The Berkeley Earth Project was set up by ‘skeptics’ based on the same concerns you mentioned above. They have just released what they found and it basic mirrors exactly the work that has been done.

    “This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071

    This is a good thing, and they aren’t the first to take this approach of taking genuine concern and doing the science themselves. The problem is, those that don’t want to believe it, won’t pay attention. There’s still the fuss and the noise made so more reasonable people thing there’s a big issue with the science when there isn’t. It’s also constantly moving the goal post, throwing new things out there. Like how in the last few years, it’s gone from global warming isn’t happening, to it’s over, to it’s cooling, to “no one denies it’s happening but it’s natural.” All while still arguing the effects aren’t happening. “There’s snow on that mountain.” What’s happening now is, models have been around longer, predictions are now being compared to real results. Which apparently are fairly smack right in the middle of the best and worst case models. So the next thing will be, ‘yes the models were good for the last ten years, but for the next ten they won’t be.’ Then it’ll be, ‘they were good for the last 20 years, but now they won’t be,’ ect.

    Blink;1693409 wrote:
    Personally, I agree we should be doing sensible things like moving away from coal fired power (but for me that means nuclear as I’ve yet to see how solar and wind power can generate base load 24 hours a day).

    Also good timing to mention.

    World’s First Solar Plant To Generate Electricity Even At Night

    I think with these things, it’s just the right combination of where and what you build and aim for an over supply of electricity. It’s constantly improving technology. I think the basic premise for large scale is to use excess power to do things, like store heat. Or to pump water up hill to a reservoir, so when there’s no sun, or wind, you can have the water flow down and turn turbines. There’s all sorts of options. Everything including nuclear should be on the table. The earlier you start, the longer time you have to get it right, develop it and keep costs down.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  15. DermottBanana

    Up_All_Night;1693231 wrote: See I have a lot of problem with your post..

    Of course you do. The rest of what you wrote shows us you didn’t *understand* my post.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  16. Up_All_Night

    DermottBanana;1693458 wrote: Of course you do. The rest of what you wrote shows us you didn’t *understand* my post.

    Was more a general rant, inspired by your claim for never finding middle ground.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply