posted
Grrrrr. Can I at least suggest some reading material when I am at a real keyboard on Monday? F***ed up Catholicism irks me. For now, hoosiertoo, I will just say that there are some significant gaps in your understanding of both the pedophilia crisis and the Church's doctrine on birth control.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
hoosiertoo, there are multiple articles that vox day wrote where he's saying pretty sincerely that women have to remain uneducated or you destroy decent society and civilization.
here is one in which he said "in light of the strong correlation between female education and demographic decline, a purely empirical perspective on Malala Yousafzai, the poster girl for global female education, may indicate that the Taliban's attempt to silence her was perfectly rational and scientifically justifiable."
in this one he responds to a question about women, "How does throwing acid in their faces when they demand independence from men benefit women?" with the response, "Because female independence is strongly correlated with a whole host of social ills. Using the utilitarian metric favored by most atheists, a few acid-burned faces is a small price to pay for lasting marriages, stable families, legitimate children, low levels of debt, strong currencies, affordable housing, homogenous populations, low levels of crime, and demographic stability."
After reading these two articles, tell me explicitly which of his views you share, and explain them clearly. Do you agree that women should not be educated in order to preserve a good society, and that female equality and independence is bad and should be worked against? Do you believe like Beale that the taliban's actions against female education is worth thwarting and silencing? Do you believe that controlling women with things like honor killings and acid attacks is ultimately in any way justifiable?
posted
Let's also nip one objection in the bud: by saying 'by using the utilitarian metrics atheists...etc', that doesn't mean you get to say, "Ah ha! He was talking about how atheists think!"
Setting aside that it's a feeble smoke screen anyway, we're still left with him asserting that 'female independence' is associated with a host of social ills.
I'm fine with labeling that misogyny, mostly because it is.
Anyway, if we're still hinting that the other party isn't answering questions, you've left quite a few on the table yourself, hoosiertoo. Such as feminism being a Marxist construct and therefore twaddle? I liked that your source for this claim was a wiki entry which said in the very first line that Marxist Feminism was a *branch* of feminism.
We can start with that if you like.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm all for properly educated women. Is it necessary to preserve a good society? Not if they're either maleducated or fail to raise children and pass it on. Equality, except under the law, is unattainable because no two people of the same sex are going to be equal in everything, much less two people of opposite sex.
"Do you believe like Beale that the taliban's actions against female education is worth thwarting and silencing?"
I'm not even sure what that sentence means. That said, I'm against public education for anybody. Based on the results so far, it'd be hard to prove me wrong.
"Do you believe that controlling women with things like honor killings and acid attacks is ultimately in any way justifiable?"
Good Lord, no. Except for self-defense (including war) and occasional, reasonable corporal punishment for younguns, physical violence against anyone is unnecessary. I'm against the death penalty, too. FWIW.
Shaming and ostracism work just fine for women or men, and have for thousands of years. Ask any SJW.
@Rakeesh - if you parse the sentence, it's exactly what he means. Words, context and construction convey meaning. I get to use "Aha! He's talking about what atheists think!" - not so much, but I'll roll with that for now - because English.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not even sure what that sentence means. That said, I'm against public education for anybody. Based on the results so far, it'd be hard to prove me wrong.
You approve of widespread illiteracy and ignorance? Generally, the alternative to public education is not better education but rather no education.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
This is an account by a woman who was part of the Papal Birth Control Commission. The summary: Despite the overwhelming recommendation of the bishops, cardinals, gynecologists, physicians, psychiatrists, demographers, sociologists, economists and married couples who were on the Council, a very few (four if I recall) bishops swayed Pope Paul VI to retain the ban on birth control in order to keep from acknowledging that Pope Pius XI erred in Casti connubii.
I should note that my cousin co-authored the second book. He is the foremost expert on the abuse scandal. (He also point out that he did not pick the title. It is much more "academic" than it appears.) Most of the book is about the history of sexual abuse in the Church, the conditions in the Church that lead to abuse, and the complicity of the bishops in allowing it to continue. However (Short, sloppy summary):
There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that homosexuals are more apt to be attracted to children than anyone else. Priests on the other hand have vastly more access to young boys than to young girls. Also, celibacy is often correlated with psychosexual immaturity. That will often express itself as an attraction to a self-substitute - someone who resembles oneself. Finally, in a culture where all sexual desire is considered shameful, secrecy is essential and children are more easily controlled.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those aren't very good answers. I have to get more detail from you before they're in any way meaningful.
quote:Short answers:
I'm all for properly educated women. Is it necessary to preserve a good society? Not if they're either maleducated or fail to raise children and pass it on. Equality, except under the law, is unattainable because no two people of the same sex are going to be equal in everything, much less two people of opposite sex.
What, explicitly, is your definition of "properly" educated women? What education is "proper" for women? How does this differ for education for men? Is there any education you feel needs to be reserved for men?
quote:I'm not even sure what that sentence means. That said, I'm against public education for anybody. Based on the results so far, it'd be hard to prove me wrong.
You mean like if I collected a comparison between countries with public education and countries without public education, we would see no evidence favoring the outcome of countries with public education? The statement, on its face, appears ridiculous.
quote:Good Lord, no.
So do you have any defense for Theodore Beale believing this explicitly?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:‘Legitimacy,’ Sandifer says. Legitimacy for whom? For the likeminded—who else? But that, my well-educated friend, is the sound-proofed legitimacy of the Booker, or the National Book Awards—which is to say, the legitimacy of the irrelevant, the socially inert. The last thing this accelerating world needs is more ingroup ejaculate. The fact that Beale managed to pull this little coup is proof positive that science fiction and fantasy matter, that we dwell in a rare corner of culture where the battle of ideas is for… ****ing… real.
I'm pretty sure the crack about public schools was really one about how *American* public schools are managed. Even if it was, though, it was a silly remark when we're talking about people who want 'education' for women to be, I don't know, parts of the Koran?
If you don't believe honor killings and acid attacks are justifiable, on what basis do you not repudiate Vox Day? He is on record stating that there is some rationality in those things, thanks to the independence of women being linked to 'a host of social ills'.
As for shaming and ostracism, well if you're going to bring in the scope of history, you look pretty damn silly complaining about SJWs which are a very modern phenomenon. You also look silly because we're talking about organized violence against and shaming of women here, and Vox Day's support of such practices, which is pretty much one of the oldest types of ostracism we've got as a species. But hey, good time to whine about those mean ole SJWs, right? All complaining about Vox Day expressing approval for *the Taliban* and stuff. Tyrants.
As for context, no, it was transparent BS when he tried to suggest that that sort of utilitarian worldview was one tied exclusively to atheists. And I notice, since you mentioned not answering questions earlier, that for like the third time now? You left off remarking on Vox Day's assertions that empowering women leads to social ills.
And as for Marxism and feminism, you claimed that feminism was, by definition, Marxist nonsense. You *still* have not even approached substantiating that claim. The first 'source' you offered for that explicitly stated that 'Marxist feminism' was a *branch* of feminism. Now you offer another link to something which talks about the role feminists played in the beginnings of Marxism and vice versa-which is still nowhere near your original point!
The 'short answer' stuff where you simply ignore things said to you, or forget them, is wearing thin. Partly because of your shot about not answering questions, I will admit. Kmbboots made a thorough post about this, but homosexuality =/ pedophilia. That may work in the echo chambers of politics you might be used to, but out in the world where the default assumption that homosexuality is a violation of natural law is regarded as offensive and ridiculous, you have to do better.
You're right about at least one thing, though: there is a 'culture war'. Always is, really. But strangely, folks like yourself only started complaining when you started to lose.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Sorry for short answers - my time is limited. Sometimes I forget that I can't assume the people I'm interacting with don't necessarily understand my "mental shorthand."
Properly educated for women and men = Reading (in the classics,) writing (also with an eye toward the classics) and 'rithmetic (math through at least algebra and geometry, calculus even better - to be fair, my weakest subjects.) Also at least one foreign language and at least a study in Latin and Greek roots. Also basic civics and an overview of world and more in-depth American history. I also like to see musical training, both history and theory and practice, including vocal, if one has the voice for it. After high school, private university if you have the aptitude or need; otherwise self education in areas of interest. I prefer homeschool or private school through 6th grade and some combination of homeschool and formal instruction through 8th grade, thereafter formal instruction, particularly in math, basic philosophy and rhetoric, etc. in private religious high schools. Religious training throughout, of course. Even a budding atheist should know the great religions of the world; so should Christians know their "competitors."
Two of my kids went through public schools, one a combination of public and private schools. I thought their formal educations were largely a bad joke. I've - actually, more my wife- homeschooled one of the grandkids.
LCD "public education" can be easily taught at home or private schools. Students who are incapable of being educated or who can't (or won't) sit still for a basic education described above can drop out or be taught to their capacity - horse, water etc.
It's possible to get a decent education in public schools, but not as they are currently run. Better to phase them out through voucher systems and attrition.
quote:"So do you have any defense for Theodore Beale believing this explicitly? "
Again - he doesn't. Take it up with Beale. I'm now done with that subject.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am deeply grateful that the world you desire, hoosiertoo, is not a world that will ever again exist -- to the extent that it ever existed, of course.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beale doesn't explicitly believe that independence for women does not lead to a host of social ills?
He literally said so, and you're familiar with his remarks on the subject so I know you know he said so. It's a fine thing to be done with it when you never truthfully engaged on it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm not going to take your committed misrepresentation of what Beale clearly believes up with Beale; that's on you, and relevant to how you present him, or what he 'actually' believes.
You were trying to deny things he clearly said meant ... exactly what they say. It's a non-defense you won't even stand behind except to presume to us we can't judge his horrific statements for exactly what they are.
Which makes it easy to understand how you could be standing up for him.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hoosiertoo: I'm all for properly educated women. Is it necessary to preserve a good society? Not if they're either maleducated or fail to raise children and pass it on.
So what about men? Do they have to raise children and pass it on? If they don't is that a waste or their education?
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:folks like yourself only started complaining when you started to lose.
I guess I've had a head start on most of my fellow travellers then. So the corollary is "folks like yourself won't stop until we've lost?" There's no place in Social Justice Hell (or paradise, if you prefer) for reactionaries like me? Good comrade.
"Empowering" women. How sexist of you.
What is the biological purpose of a woman?
What is the biological purpose of a man?
Inherent in these questions is one small part of the argument from natural law for the "intrinsic disorder" of homosexuals.
Fine. If you want to split hairs and assert that just because feminism and Marxism (progressivism, leftardism, whatever) aren't definably the same, you win. That they've been political bedfellows is undeniable; I suspect you'll deny it.
Men who have sex with underage boys are homosexuals. (BTW, pederasty =/ pedophilia) Can we agree with that much? Pederasty is immoral, right? If not, why not?
The problem of pederasts in the the Catholic Church is a convenient bludgeon. "If pedophilia were anything but a convenient hammer to be used when reporting incessantly on hated targets such as the Catholic Church, the New York Times and Los Angeles Times would not have run articles legitimizing it. The 61 biggest California newspapers would not have published nearly 2,000 articles on the church scandal during the first half of 2002 but, during the same period, only four on the public-school sex scandal, which a government-sponsored Hofstra University study found is 100 times the magnitude of the church scandal and is still ongoing." - Selwyn Duke.
And do try not to be disingenuous. Ostracism and shame are at work in every group, or else there is no group; what do you think is going on here? Besides some friendly discourse with dogbreath, the only interaction here has been in response to my "badthink." Am I a troll? Don't feed me. Do you run me off? More often than not the ostracism isn't blatant. "Badthinker" either shuts up and is mostly tolerated or simply self-segregates.
I don't beieve "organized violence" is even necessary. Insinuate yourself (for example - you may fit right in for all I know) into my biker club, you'll find yourself right back out again if you don't fit the criteria for membership. Happens all the time, and it's not a bad thing. I like to associate with bikers. Freedom of association is a good thing.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
Inherent in these questions is one small part of the argument from natural law for the "intrinsic disorder" of homosexuals.
What are your answers to these questions and what do you consider the intrinsic disorder of homosexuals?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it goes without saying that he believes the biological purpose of both man and woman is to serve as batteries to power flying squid robots. Homosexuals, who produce too fabulous a frequency of energy, are clearly unsuited to this task and should be relegated to homeschooling the little robot larvae.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what about men? Do they have to raise children and pass it on? If they don't is that a waste or their education?
Not the subject at hand, but yes. And yes. Duty to the next generation.
@TomDavidson - that it ever did exist at all is the reason this country isn't a third world shithole quite yet. But it's coming. The 1% will, as always, do well enough. Pity the lower classes. People forget, if they ever knew, that Christendom was an improvement over the status quo ante. Read Rodney Stark.
@Samprimary - take it anyway you want. Suit youself. I've already told you what I think. My reading comprehension is just fine. Tested at 99th percentile at one time, if memory serves. I'm sure age degrades some skills; it has everything else.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
@TomDavidson - I'm sure you'd find the "Property of ..." shirts on some of the women at the patch party disturbing.
If you're going to accuse of sexism, you may as well let me in on whatever the definition is this time. I'm sure my wife would enlighten you otherwise. Maybe not, though. I am a bit of an asshole, although I'd like to think I'm an equal opportunity asshole.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Samprimary - unless you read Aquinas, Natural Law isn't boring at all. Good Thomas can give you a bit of a headache if you aren't in the mood.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hoosiertoo: Men who have sex with underage boys are homosexuals. (BTW, pederasty =/ pedophilia) Can we agree with that much? Pederasty is immoral, right? If not, why not?
Nope. Not that simple. Did you do your homework? Pederasty is immoral not because of the gender of the participants but because there is no consent. And both pederasty and pedophilia (of both boys and girls) was (and I bet I can safely say "is") going on in the Church.
The scandal is not limited to the fact of the abuse. The scandal is magnified by the institutional aiding and abetting - facilitating, even - of these crimes by people at the very highest level.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hey, own it, man. My criteria for sexism in this scenario: believing that the role of a woman, once she's acquired enough familiarity with the classics of Western civilization to be a good little citizen, is to produce babies for the man who chose her and then stay home with them in order to avoid having to sentence them to the ignominy of public school, ideally avoiding political opinions not shared by her husband and recognizing that her personal preferences (as fueled by her natural maternal instincts and inherent appreciation of dominance) may not be the best for society as a whole.
But, yes, I generally don't like "property of..." shirts. When worn unironically, they're usually evidence of stupidity; when worn ironically, they're evidence of smugness.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
@TomDavidson - To thine own self be true. Know thyself. Etc...and so I own it.
My wife works. Has since the kids were raised (and off and on as they were growing up depending on what shifts I was working) and has interests and political beliefs different from mine, if even less libertarian. She went from a Clinton voter to hard right faster than a semi with a blown passenger side steer tire. She didn't produce babies for me, but with me. Bilingual. Smart lady, marrying me being possibly the dumbest thing she's ever done.
Inherent appreciation of dominance - lol - you obviously you don't know my old lady.
Viva la difference. So...not a sexist.
Look at it as "What is best?"
quote:But, yes, I generally don't like "property of..." shirts. When worn unironically, they're usually evidence of stupidity; when worn ironically, they're evidence of smugness.
And yet these women chose to wear them. Hater Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess I've had a head start on most of my fellow travellers then. So the corollary is "folks like yourself won't stop until we've lost?" There's no place in Social Justice Hell (or paradise, if you prefer) for reactionaries like me? Good comrade.
The persistence you have in identifying me as some sort of Marxist is frankly pretty funny. Feminists are Marxists. I'm a Marxist. Who else is a Marxist? Liberals are, I expect. Atheists for sure.
quote:"Empowering" women. How sexist of you.
What is the biological purpose of a woman?
What is the biological purpose of a man?
Inherent in these questions is one small part of the argument from natural law for the "intrinsic disorder" of homosexuals.
Fine. If you want to split hairs and assert that just because feminism and Marxism (progressivism, leftardism, whatever) aren't definably the same, you win. That they've been political bedfellows is undeniable; I suspect you'll deny it.
Should the sole role of government and culture be in adhering to the 'biological purposes' of men and women? Which does pose an interesting question. Nowhere in the 'biological purpose' of a human being is there anything about worshipping a deity-people can procreate perfectly well without it. Outlaw religion! It's not tied to our biological purpose.
Obviously that's a ridiculous argument. Even if I granted your premise, which rather fundamentally dehumanizes those without interest or ability to procreate, even when they're heterosexual. I guess for them it's a cold, cold world out there? or something?
As for 'winning' about Marxism and feminism, well on that particular question my winning was a given. You made a silly statement. And I won't deny that feminism and Marxism have had connections in the past. Marxism, having ties to a group of people in the larger society with a history of being oppressed, lacking in power and representation...weird!
quote:And do try not to be disingenuous. Ostracism and shame are at work in every group, or else there is no group; what do you think is going on here? Besides some friendly discourse with dogbreath, the only interaction here has been in response to my "badthink." Am I a troll? Don't feed me. Do you run me off? More often than not the ostracism isn't blatant. "Badthinker" either shuts up and is mostly tolerated or simply self-segregates.
You were the one who brought up ostracism and suggested it was somehow the provenance of social justice warriors. That was you, remember?
quote:I don't beieve "organized violence" is even necessary. Insinuate yourself (for example - you may fit right in for all I know) into my biker club, you'll find yourself right back out again if you don't fit the criteria for membership. Happens all the time, and it's not a bad thing. I like to associate with bikers. Freedom of association is a good thing.
OK, at this point your question of whether or not you're a troll is starting to become clear. We weren't talking about a voluntary social club based on a pastime, we were talking about violence against women in countries where it is literally institutional, and Vox Day's defense of the practice as having a rational basis somewhere, because hey, liberated women are the root of so many social ills.
Are you going to just continue to pretend this wasn't said? No one else is forgetting, you know.
And as for the institutional problem the RCC has with handling pedophilia on the part of its priests, and almost even more troubling the history of covering up and shuffling them around...you're goddamn right it's a convenient freaking bludgeon. Your church, in the persons of its Pope and its priesthood, claim to be the representatives of God here on Earth, and yet historically and even into the present day, you don't come down like a ton of freaking bricks on abusive priests and those who shelter them. It has to be pried out of you with shoehorns and crowbars, frequently with the force of secular law.
But boy-howdy, if there are some women somewhere in the church talking about hey maybe they too could be priests someday, well. Then the institutional priority comes rather into focus. Investigations. Chastisements. Excommunications. Denouncements. Right from on-high in Rome.
And then the same church is going to lecture the world on contraception and homosexuality? You're goddamned right it's a convenient bludgeon. I would thank your church for handing it to me so nicely, if the cost hadn't been, well, the rape and torture of children.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I've already decried the lavender mafia in the Church. I don't think there's any place in the church for pederasts or pedophiles or their enablers. It's a sad fact that predators hang out where the prey is.
Who decided that pederasty was immoral in the first place? Who says that consent is even necessary? Why is it necessary? Why do I care if a man wants to have sex with an (arbitrarily) underage woman or man. Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed (literally.) Aren't teens sexual beings? Why is it okay to choose to have sex with a 17 year old man but not a 19 year old man.
Chastity...abstinence...hello?
Selwyn Duke -
quote:"...there is great historical precedent for pedophilia, that thing most would currently say we could never accept. And the obvious place to start here is with ancient Greece. The civilization is well-known for its acceptance of homosexuality, yet what actually was most common in this arena was pederasty, sexual relationships between men and boys. It is said that in the mid and late periods of ancient Sparta, the practice was institutionalized in the city-state’s military camps, with a 12-year-old boy being attached to a mature man who would become the child’s mentor and, apparently, molester. And homoerotic ancient Greek art and, more significantly, the casual way prominent Greeks spoke of pederasty attest to its widespread acceptance. As to the latter, historian Plutarch addresses Theban pederasty in Life of Pelopidas and explains that it was an educational device for boys that was designed to “soften, while they were young, their natural fierceness” and “temper the manners and characters of the youth.” The poet Solon gushed about pederasty in his poem “Boys and Sport,” and tradition tells us that the warrior group the Sacred Band of Thebes comprised pederastic man-youth pairings. In fact, the Greeks even had words describing the players in man-boy relationships: An erastes was an adult man who courted or was in a sexual relationship with a boy (this accounts for part of the derivation of “pederast”), who himself was known as an eromenos.
Yet it wasn’t just the “advanced” Greeks. History is littered with examples of primitive peoples that practiced institutionalized pedophilia; the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea does so to this day, and many military personnel will attest to how the abuse of “dancing boys” is widespread in Afghanistan. The reality? When it wasn’t actually prescribing it as a good that created a bond between brothers in arms or served some other end, pagan morality often had little negative to say about pedophilia (and Islamic cultures may tolerate it)."
On the Horizon? I give you NAMBLA.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:My wife works. Has since the kids were raised (and off and on as they were growing up depending on what shifts I was working) and has interests and political beliefs different from mine, if even less libertarian. She went from a Clinton voter to hard right faster than a semi with a blown passenger side steer tire. She didn't produce babies for me, but with me. Bilingual. Smart lady, marrying me being possibly the dumbest thing she's ever done.
Do you believe Vox would approve?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Should the sole role of government and culture be in adhering to the 'biological purposes' of men and women? Which does pose an interesting question. Nowhere in the 'biological purpose' of a human being is there anything about worshipping a deity-people can procreate perfectly well without it.
As can animals. What is a human being?
quote:The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God; it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude. It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment. By his deliberate actions, the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience. Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth. With the help of grace they grow in virtue, avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son1 to the mercy of our Father in heaven. In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.
I was a practicing Buddhist before becoming Catholic (long story.)
quote:Human beings are composed of Five Aggregates and are without a separate self. They are always in the process of change – constantly being born and constantly dying. They are empty of self and without a separate existence. The mind is the source of all confusion, and the body the forest of all unwholesome actions.
posted
@TomDavidson - why would I give a rat's patoot what Vox thinks about my marriage? I think he'd be fine with it actually, but I haven't asked.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
What has he written that would give you the impression that he'd approve of a strong-willed, politically-active woman in the workforce?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
You may not self-identify as a Marxist. Check you assumptions.
So you are? What, precisely?
The culture is rotten with it, just as there is quite a bit of leftover Christendom floating around with the flotsam of modernity and post-modernity, which is itself actually reversion to the mean - as in poor or inferior in quality.
It's what makes the place still liveable.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, yes, it's easy to forget how the interminable war between Christendom and Marxism informs all aspects of our society. *laugh*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
@TomDavidson - I don't know that he's written anything on the subject. I read Vox occasionally. It doesn't make me a sycophant.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
@TomDavidson - at least four popes thought so. Marxism is just one more leftist philosophy. It had predecessors, and all have been vehemently against the Church specifically and Christianity generally.
If you're aware of history at all, you'd think you'd get that.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hoosiertoo: @kmbboots -
I've already decried the lavender mafia in the Church. I don't think there's any place in the church for pederasts or pedophiles or their enablers. It's a sad fact that predators hang out where the prey is.
Who decided that pederasty was immoral in the first place? Who says that consent is even necessary? Why is it necessary? Why do I care if a man wants to have sex with an (arbitrarily) underage woman or man. Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed (literally.) Aren't teens sexual beings? Why is it okay to choose to have sex with a 17 year old man but not a 19 year old man.
Your thinking is sufficiently bizarre to me that I can't tell if you are actually asking those questions or being rhetorical. I have no idea where you are trying to get to with this post.
I wasn't asking you to decry the "lavender mafia" (whatever that is supposed to mean); I was educating you on the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by hoosiertoo: @TomDavidson - at least four popes thought so. Marxism is just one more leftist philosophy. It had predecessors, and all have been vehemently against the Church specifically and Christianity generally.
If you're aware of history at all, you'd think you'd get that.
If you did, you would understand that it was the co-opting of Christianity to support the ruling classes that made it antithetical to Marxism.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Rhetorical? Yes. Actually asking? If you want to have a go at answering, feel free. Always an interesting exercise.
Sufficiently bizarre - It's kind of been a 3 or 4 way conversation, so it's a little taxing on an middle-aged fart's mental processes.
Last post for me. Thanks for the convo so far. I have to wrap up here at work - as if I've actually been working (it's good to be the king) - I'll get back to the forum next week.
I've a full schedule of riding and, ummm, more riding to do this weekend.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. I am not nearly bored enough to answer rhetorical questions as an "exercise". Why don't you try to explain where exactly you were going with that whole thing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what about men? Do they have to raise children and pass it on? If they don't is that a waste or their education?
Not the subject at hand, but yes. And yes. Duty to the next generation.
Hi. I'm a feminist. I don't believe everyone is the same. I do believe that women are equally as valuable as men.
And since this thread is discussing both misogyny and feminism, I thought my question about whether in your view both men and women have a duty to reproduce and pass on their 'proper' educations to the next generation was relevant.
Even if it wasn't, there's also such a thing as thread drift. No one poster can entirely control the direction of a thread.
I will say, from what you have said, I vehemently disagree with you on almost every topic.
I'm an agnostic/atheist (no, I haven't entirely made up my mind which is the most appropriate moniker). As stated, I'm a feminist. I'm well educated and underemployed. I'm also childless by choice. And I would argue that I'm am contributing to the next generation through my niece and nephew, and even without them, I am doing my best to make the world a better place. You may disagree with my actions, but I would guess that I also disagree with yours.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without even a run-off in many cases. Over 50% of voters put "No Award" above the Puppy nominees in most categories.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
