|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 26 2015 00:23 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 23:20 heliusx wrote:On September 25 2015 22:49 KwarK wrote:
How can Catholics have less than 100% approval of the Pope? Has nobody told them how their religion works? Many Catholics have opposed the idea of papal infallibility for hundreds of years, if that's what you're getting at. So this is nothing new. I'm not very proficitent with christianity (or other religions/magic beliefs), but aren't those called "protestants" and not catholics? 
No and it shows. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the head of their church or having any authority over their worship. Depending on the version of Protestant, they may not accept anyone as the head of the church and may only see it as a community of worshipers.
Doesn't mean they don't think the Pope is a cool guy and has important lessons to teach, but he is just a person to them.
|
Boehner's resigning now because he probably was told by other members of leadership that he's going to be removed as Speaker if he doesn't. There's been talk of this for weeks. And it's not uncommon for high ranking politicians to simply resign and leave office instead of taking a lesser post. It's not like Boehner has anything left to do in Congress. I'm sure that he has a fat lobbyist job waiting for him once he's a civilian again.
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 26 2015 00:23 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 23:20 heliusx wrote:On September 25 2015 22:49 KwarK wrote:
How can Catholics have less than 100% approval of the Pope? Has nobody told them how their religion works? Many Catholics have opposed the idea of papal infallibility for hundreds of years, if that's what you're getting at. So this is nothing new. I'm not very proficitent with christianity (or other religions/magic beliefs), but aren't those called "protestants" and not catholics?
This was pretty much my point. Being a Catholic means conforming with the rules, structure and doctrines of the Catholic church. It's not one of those "interpret it how you like, in a way you're all right" churches, that's being a protestant. Catholicism is all about the unbroken line of authority going all the way back to Jesus. Might as well be a Catholic but believe that transubstantiation isn't real.
|
On September 26 2015 00:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 00:23 ACrow wrote:On September 25 2015 23:20 heliusx wrote:On September 25 2015 22:49 KwarK wrote:
How can Catholics have less than 100% approval of the Pope? Has nobody told them how their religion works? Many Catholics have opposed the idea of papal infallibility for hundreds of years, if that's what you're getting at. So this is nothing new. I'm not very proficitent with christianity (or other religions/magic beliefs), but aren't those called "protestants" and not catholics? This was pretty much my point. Being a Catholic means conforming with the rules, structure and doctrines of the Catholic church. It's not one of those "interpret it how you like, in a way you're all right" churches, that's being a protestant. Catholicism is all about the unbroken line of authority going all the way back to Jesus. Might as well be a Catholic but believe that transubstantiation isn't real.
Technically, Papal infallibility has to be specifically invoked for it to apply. If I remember correctly, it has only been invoked a handful of times in history if at all.
Also, there's always been a fairly large degree of variance within the Church when it comes to interpretations of faith. Though there are core tenets of Catholicism, quite a bit is left open to debate. In fact, you'll see different flavors of Catholicism depending upon which region of the world that you're in. The priests in Latin America tend to be quite different than those North America or Europe.
|
It's pretty clear you actually don't have a clue what "being catholic means"
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 26 2015 00:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 00:37 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 00:23 ACrow wrote:On September 25 2015 23:20 heliusx wrote:On September 25 2015 22:49 KwarK wrote:
How can Catholics have less than 100% approval of the Pope? Has nobody told them how their religion works? Many Catholics have opposed the idea of papal infallibility for hundreds of years, if that's what you're getting at. So this is nothing new. I'm not very proficitent with christianity (or other religions/magic beliefs), but aren't those called "protestants" and not catholics? This was pretty much my point. Being a Catholic means conforming with the rules, structure and doctrines of the Catholic church. It's not one of those "interpret it how you like, in a way you're all right" churches, that's being a protestant. Catholicism is all about the unbroken line of authority going all the way back to Jesus. Might as well be a Catholic but believe that transubstantiation isn't real. Technically, Papal infallibility has to be specifically invoked for it to apply. If I remember correctly, it has only been invoked a handful of times in history if at all. Also, there's always been a fairly large degree of variance within the Church when it comes to interpretations of faith. Though there are core tenets of Catholicism, quite a bit is left open to debate. In fact, you'll see different flavors of Catholicism depending upon which region of the world that you're in. The priests in Latin America tend to be quite different than those North America or Europe.
The regional divisions are also an issue. Again, I'm not talking about Papal infallibility. I'm talking about the broad point of the Catholic church being their history and structure. The Pope is the bishop of Rome, the leader of the Christianity tracing his authority all the way back to Peter. For a long time they claimed (falsely using forged documents) to also be the heirs of the Roman Empire and therefore all Western European civilization. Sure, some heretics may have come along a few hundred years ago and questioned their power but fuck those guys, they're the motherfucking Catholic church.
If you're not going to be all about the structure, traditions, weird beliefs, history and hierarchy you might as well stop pretending you think the wine really becomes the literal blood of Jesus and stay in bed on Sunday mornings. The Catholic church is the bastion against the idea that you can define your own relationship with God. They're the original thing, the unchanged pure form that didn't even want to let you read the bible in case you got any weird ideas.
Being a Catholic is like insisting that coke is way better than any other soda and that you can totally tell the difference between a drop of coke and a drop of pepsi and that coke can't possibly be improved. Being a Catholic who doesn't agree with the Pope would be being a member of the coke master race club but putting a squeeze of lime in yours. Either get with the program or get out.
|
Cafeteria Catholics are still Catholic.
|
So the most useless Speaker of the House is to resign not only the speaker-ship but his seat as well. Amazing. Now the question is if the conservatives will let a Californian Republican take the reins without trying to sabotage anything and everything.
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 26 2015 00:55 farvacola wrote:
Cafeteria Catholics are still Catholic.
They may self define as that but they're missing the point. I'm in favour of letting people identify as whatever they like as long as it doesn't impact me but that doesn't mean I won't express skepticism about a guy identifying as 100% hetero after the tenth time I catch them with a dick in their mouth. A remarkable number of self proclaimed Catholics don't have a working knowledge of what Catholicism entails, although I will admit that a remarkable number of pretty much any group don't have a working knowledge of their group. Try and have a meaningful discussion about transubstantiation with one for example.
The advantage of Protestantism is that there are basically no rules. You can come up with any belief you like, for example, I prayed on it and God told me to get an abortion, and nobody can doubt that because you have a personal relationship with God and that's just your deal. The advantage of Catholicism is that although there are rules and you don't get to set them and you won't always agree with them, the rules are the rules. They've been the rules forever and everyone follows them and you have two thousand years of history on your side. You know where you are and you know that Aquinas, Anselm and Augustine have your back. If anyone fucks with you then they're fucking with Aquinas and the leader of your gang always wins at counting steps of association to Jesus.
|
On September 25 2015 17:45 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 15:58 Danglars wrote:On September 25 2015 08:21 cLutZ wrote:On September 25 2015 07:44 OuchyDathurts wrote:On September 25 2015 07:36 Paljas wrote:
Sanders might be a socialist, but his policies are unfortunately not for the most part.
Considering that he admires the " Nordic model of social democracy", I dont get why people dont just call him a social democrat.
He calls himself a 'democratic socialist'. To which people will latch on to only the word 'socialist'. In America the word 'socialist' means 'communist', they're the exact same thing in America's mind. So he's a communist. No, its because Socialists/Socialism is a dead strategy for most politicians, and for all intents and purposes "Social Democrats" are socialists. The evolution from socialist to social democrat is not an ideological one, its a political evolution. The problem with socialism (from a politician's point of view) is it involves culpability. When your state-run venture fails everyone just points at you and blames you, then elects someone else. The social democrat has no such problem, as he actually is the one who slings the blame (at corporations, the rich, etc) while still having significant control over those that he blames through taxes and regulation. That is why all the shrewd socialists are now social democrats. Interesting. I hadn't considered the blame-pivot facet of the new democratic socialists. The terms certainly seem to cycle every twenty years or so, but I didn't think past the acquired stigma rationale. Many, many state run companies actually made tons of winnings (at least in Switzerland, I doubt its much diffrent in other countries)... Most of them got privatised anyway cause... "Reasons". I have troubles thinking of a privatised company that is now doing better than before or, when the state still holds a majority of the capital, where they are run worse than the fully private competition. Could someone give me an example of a company that got better (more winnings, same service, same stability...) after it has gone 100% private? I'm not terribly well-read on Swiss privatization or the "reasons" from both sides with analysis. Did you see a bending of terms in the modern post-cold war era like Clutz?
|
On September 26 2015 01:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 00:55 farvacola wrote:
Cafeteria Catholics are still Catholic. They may self define as that but they're missing the point. I'm in favour of letting people identify as whatever they like as long as it doesn't impact me but that doesn't mean I won't express skepticism about a guy identifying as 100% hetero after the tenth time I catch them with a dick in their mouth. A remarkable number of self proclaimed Catholics don't have a working knowledge of what Catholicism entails, although I will admit that a remarkable number of pretty much any group don't have a working knowledge of their group. Try and have a meaningful discussion about transubstantiation with one for example. The advantage of Protestantism is that there are basically no rules. You can come up with any belief you like, for example, I prayed on it and God told me to get an abortion, and nobody can doubt that because you have a personal relationship with God and that's just your deal. The advantage of Catholicism is that although there are rules and you don't get to set them and you won't always agree with them, the rules are the rules. They've been the rules forever and everyone follows them and you have two thousand years of history on your side. You know where you are and you know that Aquinas, Anselm and Augustine have your back. If anyone fucks with you then they're fucking with Aquinas and the leader of your gang always wins at counting steps of association to Jesus.
Kwark, to be honest, I don't think they are concerned with meeting your standards of Catholicism or how that effects discussions with you about Catholicism.
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 26 2015 01:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 01:17 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 00:55 farvacola wrote:
Cafeteria Catholics are still Catholic. They may self define as that but they're missing the point. I'm in favour of letting people identify as whatever they like as long as it doesn't impact me but that doesn't mean I won't express skepticism about a guy identifying as 100% hetero after the tenth time I catch them with a dick in their mouth. A remarkable number of self proclaimed Catholics don't have a working knowledge of what Catholicism entails, although I will admit that a remarkable number of pretty much any group don't have a working knowledge of their group. Try and have a meaningful discussion about transubstantiation with one for example. The advantage of Protestantism is that there are basically no rules. You can come up with any belief you like, for example, I prayed on it and God told me to get an abortion, and nobody can doubt that because you have a personal relationship with God and that's just your deal. The advantage of Catholicism is that although there are rules and you don't get to set them and you won't always agree with them, the rules are the rules. They've been the rules forever and everyone follows them and you have two thousand years of history on your side. You know where you are and you know that Aquinas, Anselm and Augustine have your back. If anyone fucks with you then they're fucking with Aquinas and the leader of your gang always wins at counting steps of association to Jesus. Kwark, to be honest, I don't think they are concerned with meeting your standards of Catholicism or how that effects discussions with you about Catholicism.
And that's fine. And the "100% hetero" guy with a dick in his mouth also doesn't want to hear what I think and I see no reason to go up to him and be an asshole and call him a fag. But that doesn't in any way discredit any word of what I'm saying. You can self identify as a Catholic all you want and it makes absolutely no difference to me either way, I'll just be silently sitting over here wondering how you can even manage to keep protesting that you're straight with so many dicks in your mouth.
|
On September 26 2015 01:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 01:22 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 01:17 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 00:55 farvacola wrote:
Cafeteria Catholics are still Catholic. They may self define as that but they're missing the point. I'm in favour of letting people identify as whatever they like as long as it doesn't impact me but that doesn't mean I won't express skepticism about a guy identifying as 100% hetero after the tenth time I catch them with a dick in their mouth. A remarkable number of self proclaimed Catholics don't have a working knowledge of what Catholicism entails, although I will admit that a remarkable number of pretty much any group don't have a working knowledge of their group. Try and have a meaningful discussion about transubstantiation with one for example. The advantage of Protestantism is that there are basically no rules. You can come up with any belief you like, for example, I prayed on it and God told me to get an abortion, and nobody can doubt that because you have a personal relationship with God and that's just your deal. The advantage of Catholicism is that although there are rules and you don't get to set them and you won't always agree with them, the rules are the rules. They've been the rules forever and everyone follows them and you have two thousand years of history on your side. You know where you are and you know that Aquinas, Anselm and Augustine have your back. If anyone fucks with you then they're fucking with Aquinas and the leader of your gang always wins at counting steps of association to Jesus. Kwark, to be honest, I don't think they are concerned with meeting your standards of Catholicism or how that effects discussions with you about Catholicism. And that's fine. And the "100% hetero" guy with a dick in his mouth also doesn't want to hear what I think and I see no reason to go up to him and be an asshole and call him a fag. But that doesn't in any way discredit any word of what I'm saying. You can self identify as a Catholic all you want and it makes absolutely no difference to me either way, I'll just be silently sitting over here wondering how you can even manage to keep protesting that you're straight with so many dicks in your mouth.
It doesn't give you the moral or logical high ground either. You just sitting back waiting to call someone a hypocrite. But all people are hypocrites if you watch them long enough.
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 26 2015 01:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 01:25 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 01:22 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 01:17 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 00:55 farvacola wrote:
Cafeteria Catholics are still Catholic. They may self define as that but they're missing the point. I'm in favour of letting people identify as whatever they like as long as it doesn't impact me but that doesn't mean I won't express skepticism about a guy identifying as 100% hetero after the tenth time I catch them with a dick in their mouth. A remarkable number of self proclaimed Catholics don't have a working knowledge of what Catholicism entails, although I will admit that a remarkable number of pretty much any group don't have a working knowledge of their group. Try and have a meaningful discussion about transubstantiation with one for example. The advantage of Protestantism is that there are basically no rules. You can come up with any belief you like, for example, I prayed on it and God told me to get an abortion, and nobody can doubt that because you have a personal relationship with God and that's just your deal. The advantage of Catholicism is that although there are rules and you don't get to set them and you won't always agree with them, the rules are the rules. They've been the rules forever and everyone follows them and you have two thousand years of history on your side. You know where you are and you know that Aquinas, Anselm and Augustine have your back. If anyone fucks with you then they're fucking with Aquinas and the leader of your gang always wins at counting steps of association to Jesus. Kwark, to be honest, I don't think they are concerned with meeting your standards of Catholicism or how that effects discussions with you about Catholicism. And that's fine. And the "100% hetero" guy with a dick in his mouth also doesn't want to hear what I think and I see no reason to go up to him and be an asshole and call him a fag. But that doesn't in any way discredit any word of what I'm saying. You can self identify as a Catholic all you want and it makes absolutely no difference to me either way, I'll just be silently sitting over here wondering how you can even manage to keep protesting that you're straight with so many dicks in your mouth. It doesn't give you the moral or logical high ground either. You just sitting back waiting to call someone a hypocrite. But all people are hypocrites if you watch them long enough.
It's absolutely does. But that's fine, if people want to be illogical they can go on doing that. Nobody has been able to stop them so far.
|
On September 26 2015 01:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 01:28 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 01:25 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 01:22 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 01:17 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 00:55 farvacola wrote:
Cafeteria Catholics are still Catholic. They may self define as that but they're missing the point. I'm in favour of letting people identify as whatever they like as long as it doesn't impact me but that doesn't mean I won't express skepticism about a guy identifying as 100% hetero after the tenth time I catch them with a dick in their mouth. A remarkable number of self proclaimed Catholics don't have a working knowledge of what Catholicism entails, although I will admit that a remarkable number of pretty much any group don't have a working knowledge of their group. Try and have a meaningful discussion about transubstantiation with one for example. The advantage of Protestantism is that there are basically no rules. You can come up with any belief you like, for example, I prayed on it and God told me to get an abortion, and nobody can doubt that because you have a personal relationship with God and that's just your deal. The advantage of Catholicism is that although there are rules and you don't get to set them and you won't always agree with them, the rules are the rules. They've been the rules forever and everyone follows them and you have two thousand years of history on your side. You know where you are and you know that Aquinas, Anselm and Augustine have your back. If anyone fucks with you then they're fucking with Aquinas and the leader of your gang always wins at counting steps of association to Jesus. Kwark, to be honest, I don't think they are concerned with meeting your standards of Catholicism or how that effects discussions with you about Catholicism. And that's fine. And the "100% hetero" guy with a dick in his mouth also doesn't want to hear what I think and I see no reason to go up to him and be an asshole and call him a fag. But that doesn't in any way discredit any word of what I'm saying. You can self identify as a Catholic all you want and it makes absolutely no difference to me either way, I'll just be silently sitting over here wondering how you can even manage to keep protesting that you're straight with so many dicks in your mouth. It doesn't give you the moral or logical high ground either. You just sitting back waiting to call someone a hypocrite. But all people are hypocrites if you watch them long enough. It's absolutely does. But that's fine, if people want to be illogical they can go on doing that. Nobody has been able to stop them so far.
You're not Catholic, right? An atheist trying to discuss Catholicism with Catholics?
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 26 2015 01:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 01:33 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 01:28 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 01:25 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 01:22 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 01:17 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 00:55 farvacola wrote:
Cafeteria Catholics are still Catholic. They may self define as that but they're missing the point. I'm in favour of letting people identify as whatever they like as long as it doesn't impact me but that doesn't mean I won't express skepticism about a guy identifying as 100% hetero after the tenth time I catch them with a dick in their mouth. A remarkable number of self proclaimed Catholics don't have a working knowledge of what Catholicism entails, although I will admit that a remarkable number of pretty much any group don't have a working knowledge of their group. Try and have a meaningful discussion about transubstantiation with one for example. The advantage of Protestantism is that there are basically no rules. You can come up with any belief you like, for example, I prayed on it and God told me to get an abortion, and nobody can doubt that because you have a personal relationship with God and that's just your deal. The advantage of Catholicism is that although there are rules and you don't get to set them and you won't always agree with them, the rules are the rules. They've been the rules forever and everyone follows them and you have two thousand years of history on your side. You know where you are and you know that Aquinas, Anselm and Augustine have your back. If anyone fucks with you then they're fucking with Aquinas and the leader of your gang always wins at counting steps of association to Jesus. Kwark, to be honest, I don't think they are concerned with meeting your standards of Catholicism or how that effects discussions with you about Catholicism. And that's fine. And the "100% hetero" guy with a dick in his mouth also doesn't want to hear what I think and I see no reason to go up to him and be an asshole and call him a fag. But that doesn't in any way discredit any word of what I'm saying. You can self identify as a Catholic all you want and it makes absolutely no difference to me either way, I'll just be silently sitting over here wondering how you can even manage to keep protesting that you're straight with so many dicks in your mouth. It doesn't give you the moral or logical high ground either. You just sitting back waiting to call someone a hypocrite. But all people are hypocrites if you watch them long enough. It's absolutely does. But that's fine, if people want to be illogical they can go on doing that. Nobody has been able to stop them so far. You're not Catholic, right? An atheist trying to discuss Catholicism with Catholics?
Sure I am. I am 110% Catholic, I just have a bunch of atheist words in my mouth right now.
|
On September 26 2015 01:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 01:36 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 01:33 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 01:28 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 01:25 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 01:22 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 01:17 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 00:55 farvacola wrote:
Cafeteria Catholics are still Catholic. They may self define as that but they're missing the point. I'm in favour of letting people identify as whatever they like as long as it doesn't impact me but that doesn't mean I won't express skepticism about a guy identifying as 100% hetero after the tenth time I catch them with a dick in their mouth. A remarkable number of self proclaimed Catholics don't have a working knowledge of what Catholicism entails, although I will admit that a remarkable number of pretty much any group don't have a working knowledge of their group. Try and have a meaningful discussion about transubstantiation with one for example. The advantage of Protestantism is that there are basically no rules. You can come up with any belief you like, for example, I prayed on it and God told me to get an abortion, and nobody can doubt that because you have a personal relationship with God and that's just your deal. The advantage of Catholicism is that although there are rules and you don't get to set them and you won't always agree with them, the rules are the rules. They've been the rules forever and everyone follows them and you have two thousand years of history on your side. You know where you are and you know that Aquinas, Anselm and Augustine have your back. If anyone fucks with you then they're fucking with Aquinas and the leader of your gang always wins at counting steps of association to Jesus. Kwark, to be honest, I don't think they are concerned with meeting your standards of Catholicism or how that effects discussions with you about Catholicism. And that's fine. And the "100% hetero" guy with a dick in his mouth also doesn't want to hear what I think and I see no reason to go up to him and be an asshole and call him a fag. But that doesn't in any way discredit any word of what I'm saying. You can self identify as a Catholic all you want and it makes absolutely no difference to me either way, I'll just be silently sitting over here wondering how you can even manage to keep protesting that you're straight with so many dicks in your mouth. It doesn't give you the moral or logical high ground either. You just sitting back waiting to call someone a hypocrite. But all people are hypocrites if you watch them long enough. It's absolutely does. But that's fine, if people want to be illogical they can go on doing that. Nobody has been able to stop them so far. You're not Catholic, right? An atheist trying to discuss Catholicism with Catholics? Sure I am. I am 110% Catholic, I just have a bunch of atheist words in my mouth right now.
I stand correct then. Feel free to judge those of your own religion. All be over here in my church with no head or central leadership.
|
On September 26 2015 01:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 01:22 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 01:17 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 00:55 farvacola wrote:
Cafeteria Catholics are still Catholic. They may self define as that but they're missing the point. I'm in favour of letting people identify as whatever they like as long as it doesn't impact me but that doesn't mean I won't express skepticism about a guy identifying as 100% hetero after the tenth time I catch them with a dick in their mouth. A remarkable number of self proclaimed Catholics don't have a working knowledge of what Catholicism entails, although I will admit that a remarkable number of pretty much any group don't have a working knowledge of their group. Try and have a meaningful discussion about transubstantiation with one for example. The advantage of Protestantism is that there are basically no rules. You can come up with any belief you like, for example, I prayed on it and God told me to get an abortion, and nobody can doubt that because you have a personal relationship with God and that's just your deal. The advantage of Catholicism is that although there are rules and you don't get to set them and you won't always agree with them, the rules are the rules. They've been the rules forever and everyone follows them and you have two thousand years of history on your side. You know where you are and you know that Aquinas, Anselm and Augustine have your back. If anyone fucks with you then they're fucking with Aquinas and the leader of your gang always wins at counting steps of association to Jesus. Kwark, to be honest, I don't think they are concerned with meeting your standards of Catholicism or how that effects discussions with you about Catholicism. And that's fine. And the "100% hetero" guy with a dick in his mouth also doesn't want to hear what I think and I see no reason to go up to him and be an asshole and call him a fag. But that doesn't in any way discredit any word of what I'm saying. You can self identify as a Catholic all you want and it makes absolutely no difference to me either way, I'll just be silently sitting over here wondering how you can even manage to keep protesting that you're straight with so many dicks in your mouth.
Speaking in hypothetical here (I definitely don't actually belief this), and I am giving this statement more scrutiny because of your position:
So if someone identifies as a woman, but has a penis, and according to a different poster's personal beliefs, anyone with a penis is a man, it's okay to refer to them as a man as long as they're not talking directly with them?
So, for example, it would be okay to refer to transgender-woman as a male while talking about her on this forum, as long as you're not talking directly to her? And they can just post "You can self identify as an [insert whatever here] all you want and it makes absolutely no difference to me either way, I'll just be silently sitting over here wondering how you can even manage to keep protesting that you're a [insert whatever here] with [insert whatever you disagree with them doing here]"?
Edited for better phrasing.
|
I don't know why you felt the need to bring a specific person into that example.
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 26 2015 01:43 dabom88 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 01:25 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 01:22 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 01:17 KwarK wrote:On September 26 2015 00:55 farvacola wrote:
Cafeteria Catholics are still Catholic. They may self define as that but they're missing the point. I'm in favour of letting people identify as whatever they like as long as it doesn't impact me but that doesn't mean I won't express skepticism about a guy identifying as 100% hetero after the tenth time I catch them with a dick in their mouth. A remarkable number of self proclaimed Catholics don't have a working knowledge of what Catholicism entails, although I will admit that a remarkable number of pretty much any group don't have a working knowledge of their group. Try and have a meaningful discussion about transubstantiation with one for example. The advantage of Protestantism is that there are basically no rules. You can come up with any belief you like, for example, I prayed on it and God told me to get an abortion, and nobody can doubt that because you have a personal relationship with God and that's just your deal. The advantage of Catholicism is that although there are rules and you don't get to set them and you won't always agree with them, the rules are the rules. They've been the rules forever and everyone follows them and you have two thousand years of history on your side. You know where you are and you know that Aquinas, Anselm and Augustine have your back. If anyone fucks with you then they're fucking with Aquinas and the leader of your gang always wins at counting steps of association to Jesus. Kwark, to be honest, I don't think they are concerned with meeting your standards of Catholicism or how that effects discussions with you about Catholicism. And that's fine. And the "100% hetero" guy with a dick in his mouth also doesn't want to hear what I think and I see no reason to go up to him and be an asshole and call him a fag. But that doesn't in any way discredit any word of what I'm saying. You can self identify as a Catholic all you want and it makes absolutely no difference to me either way, I'll just be silently sitting over here wondering how you can even manage to keep protesting that you're straight with so many dicks in your mouth. Speaking in hypothetical here (I definitely don't actually belief this), and I am giving this statement more scrutiny because of your position: So if someone identifies as a woman, but has a penis, and according to a different poster's personal beliefs, anyone with a penis is a man, it's okay to refer to them as a man as long as they're not talking directly with them? So, for example, it would be okay to refer to Scarlett as a male while talking about her on this forum, as long as you're not talking directly to her? And they can just post "You can self identify as an [insert whatever here] all you want and it makes absolutely no difference to me either way, I'll just be silently sitting over here wondering how you can even manage to keep protesting that you're a [insert whatever here] with [insert whatever you disagree with them doing here]"?
I would argue that having a penis isn't incompatible with being female due to the differences between birth sex and gender. The case I was describing was one where the facts are incompatible with the claim, I don't think that applies with transgender people although I know some people would disagree with that. Also posting about Scarlett on a Starcraft forum would be akin to scrawling what I wrote on the doors of a Catholic church and then going "well I wasn't talking directly to them so technically I'm not an asshole". You'd still be an asshole. If, however, you wanted to misgender Scarlett somewhere not Starcraft related then I'd move you to idiot status rather than asshole.
One of the awesome things about being a Catholic is that you can get into a discussion with any other type of Christian and go
"What does your Pope say about that?"
"You mean you don't have a Pope?"
"Well who in your church represents the current occupant of a position going back two thousand years in an unbroken chain to Saint Peter who was appointed by Jesus himself?"
If you're a Catholic the Pope is your homie and you should get behind him. If you're not going to be all about that Pope then you're wasting your time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
