The bullying of an elderly man by the camera man shouldn't be surprising. Once you've decided that it's fun to advocated for the murder of defenseless unborn children, it's only a matter of time before you seek out new targets, and you can bet that those targets will be soft ones. The elderly, the physically unable, the mentally retarded. The different. These will be the natural targets of derision and of eventual elimination by our modern day eugenicists, such as the gutless videographer.
I'd say that's an unfair generalization, and contradicted by experience.
I don't know of a single pro-choicer who would approve of that kind of behavior. I'd also point out that the majority of social workers and educators who choose to dedicate their lives working with "the elderly, the physically unable, and the mentally retarded" tend to be socially liberal, meaning they are usually pro-choice.
The videographer's just an asshole, plain and simple.
It's not an unfair generalization, and in fact the truth of it will be born out as euthanasia replaces abortion as the crucial moral question of this century with respect to respect for life. If you deny the dignity of personhood to the unborn child out of pure discrimination, who's next?
Pro-choice you say? You mean pro-abortion, right? Because none of the pro-lifers I know have anything against salad bars or being able to choose a car in the colour of your choice.
"Pro-choice," "pro-abortion." It's just semantics.
There is a huge qualitative difference between abortion and euthanasia. The former deals with the morality of ending the life of an unborn baby WITHOUT THE BABY'S CONSENT. The latter is an end-of-life issue and addresses the question of who has final say in the matter--the individual or the state.
It's a bit lazy to lump disparate issues together under the vague rubric of "respect for life."
@ClumsyRoot No, you're wrong. "Pro-choice" is a completely inaccurate term if used to describe abortion advocacy. It is imprecise, and it is misleading in that it implies that pro-life people oppose free will. Further, it serves as a euphemism, allowing abortion advocates to deny the horror of the act. To be, in your words, philosophically consistent, you should never use the term 'pro-choice' to describe abortion advocacy.
Like I said, each side uses the label that serves its purposes.
My problem with the term "pro-abortion" is that it ignores the fact that most people who acknowledge a woman's right to choose are still very uncomfortable with abortion itself. Ultimately, they'd like to see fewer abortions take place (which requires reducing unwanted pregnancies).
By your reasoning, "pro-life" is also imprecise, since it implies that abortion advocates are somehow "anti-life" (or "pro-death").
One term is evasive and self-deceptive, while the other term is accurate and consistent and true.
"Pro-life" is an eminently accurate term. Pro-life people stand for the dignity and right to life of individuals, however inconvenient, elderly, imperfect, or "unproductive" those individuals may be.
Abortion advocates most certainly are anti-life, or anti-life they deem undeserving.
Anyone who honestly looks at abortion is 'uncomfortable' with it.
Yes, people who support abortion rights often have mixed feelings about abortion itself. I think of Clinton's desire to keep abortion "safe, legal, and rare." The inclusion of that last word is a tacit acknowledgement that there is a moral component to the issue.
Abortion is a unique moral issue. Because life comes from life, a conflict immediately emerges: the "right" of a woman to have autonomy over her own body, versus the "right" of a child to be born.
@ClumsyRoot If people want abortion to be 'rare', I want to know why. If they want it to be rare because it destroys life (and harms the mother), then I want to know why they only want it to be rare, and not non-existent.
I don't want murder to be 'safe, legal, and rare'. I want it to be illegal and I don't want anyone to do it to me or anyone else.
This can't go forward until you address my thought experiment. It's fun to talk in ideals and abstractions, but when the rubber hits the road, things get more complicated.
@ClumsyRoot There's no greater abstraction than playing useless hypothetical thought experiment "What if you were in a hospital fire" game.
What would make the "rubber hit the road" is if you addressed the moral dilemma of giving something a moral pass while simultaneously expressing a desire for fewer instances of it.
What's that about? What kind of sense does that make? 'Safe, legal and rare', what rot!
On the contrary, such thought experiments help to clarify decisions made in REAL-WORLD (if at times contrived) situations. It's one thing to claim the moral equivalence of a zygote with a person; it's another to actually behave as if that were the case.
Why won't you answer the question? Is it because you, like any other morally decent person, would choose to save the child rather than the embryos?
Yes--abortion involves a moral dilemma! That's my point.
@ClumsyRoot Yes, abortion presents a moral dilemma. Many choices in life do. You can choose good, or you can choose evil. You can excuse murder of the inconvenient, or you can condemn murder of the inconvenient. It's up to you. It's your choice.
I suspect you didn't address the question because you knew your answer would contradict your claim that an embryo and a child are due equal moral consideration.
I never said "there's nothing wrong with abortion." I was pointing out the inconsistency of those who would want it "rare" and still maintain that it has no moral implications.
"I was pointing out the inconsistency of those who would want it "rare" and still maintain that it has no moral implications."
I agree. I thought you were endorsing that position.
Here's my position: life begins at conception. An unborn child is a person and has the right to life. Calling the child an embryo doesn't deny it that right, nor does the fact that the child not an adult woman.
Also, I try to avoid hypothetical hospitals especially when they are aflame.
You continue to make jokes in order to avoid a fair but uncomfortable question.
If you tell me that you'd carry out the vat of embryos and leave behind the five-year-old girl to burn to death, then I will grant that you are completely consistent on this issue. Until then, I can't help but conclude that you're evading.
On the contrary, it's a reality check that helps to underscore the fact that "pure" ideals held in the abstract (usually, but not always, for religious reasons) are often at odds with real-world moral decisions.
Let's face it, you'd save the little girl. How do you reconcile such a action with your stated principles?
When I said abortion presents a dilemma, I mean that there are competing factors at play. Am I ready to give the state the power to take authority over a woman's body and force her to bring her pregnancy to term? Honestly, I find that idea a bit scary. There are serious pragmatic difficulties in making abortion illegal; it's not as if simply banning the practice would make it go away.
I'd rather focus on policies that reduce unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
"You want the government to stop people from fucking?" How on earth did you get THAT out of what I wrote? If it's not obvious to you yet, I'm a libertarian at heart.
I'd like to see people show more responsibility when it comes to sex. To that end, I support public policies that encourage the correct use of contraception.
People are going to fuck--we know this from experience. And the fact remains that the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
@ClumsyRoot You said you'd like to focus on policies that reduce unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Since you think that if abortion was illegal it would result in the government monitoring women's bodies, I guess that policies reducing unwanted pregnancies would mean the government would have to monitor sexual congress.
There's no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy. We know what comes of intercourse. The baby they create wants to be alive. There's an adoption waiting list.
I don't want the government to "monitor sexual congress" or require people to use birth control, any more than I want it to force women to have children they don't want. In a free society, such decisions must be made by the individuals involved.
What I would like is for people to be educated about contraception and have easy (ideally, free) access to it. What they do after that is up to them.
@ClumsyRoot You think I'm lazy? No, I'm morally and philosophically consistent by seeing the link between abortion and euthanasia. You're being obtuse in pretending not to see the link. The issue of euthanasia will start out framed as a matter of personal choice. Those who advocate it will be "pro-choice", but euthanasia will soon enough by embraced by the state as a means of dealing with the undesirable, the imperfect, and the expensive.
Slippery-slope fallacy. Where is your evidence that allowing people who are terminally ill the opportunity to end their lives early will lead to euthanasia being "embraced by the state"? Has this happened in the Western European countries that allow it? Not at all. The whole POINT is to give individuals autonomy over their own lives--to keep the state out of the process entirely.
A consistency that relies on the oversimplification of complex issues is a false consistency.
@ClumsyRoot Pro-life people respect life. Respect for life is their motivation. They reject the culture of death, the culture which has normalized the holocaust that is abortion. These are simple truths. You search for 'nuance' because you cannot, I suppose, look at truth head on. The truth disturbs you. Yet if you objectively read your own writing it would be obvious to you.
"Pro-choice" people, you say, desire fewer abortions.
Well, why on earth would they? Unless abortion is...wrong.
Bald assertions are no substitute for arguments and evidence.
I've noticed that a lot of people treat life as if it's an abstraction. They seem to value the concept of life more than the actual act of living.
If you've ever watched a love one writhing in agony as they died of bone cancer, you might be a bit more receptive to the idea that, sometimes, death is preferable to life--and that the individual should be allowed to make that decision.
@ClumsyRoot Blow it out your ass. Do you reckon you're the only one who's ever been touched by cancer? Suffering is horrible, but dealing with problems by killing people is not the right answer.
I'm not talking about killing people. I'm talking about allowing individual human beings the option to end their own lives when they wish to. It's all about personal autonomy--individual freedom to decide one's own fate.
@ClumsyRoot The bit about watching somebody suffer and die of bone cancer as if that's an argument for the acceptance of killing sick people. Blow that out your ass. You're not the only one who's ever been touched by cancer, and cancer isn't an argument for euthanasia.
I trust you can see the difference between ending someone else's life and ending your own.
If I'm ever in a situation in which I'm terminally ill and life has become unbearable, I want to have the option to end my life early. There is nothing noble about needless suffering. There comes a point for many people when life is no longer worth living.
The decision is ultimately the individual's. No one has a right to make those decisions for another person.
I think you misunderstand; I have serious misgivings about abortion.
But what's the alternative? In a free society, an abortion ban would be unenforceable, short of instituting some type of police state in which women's pregnancies are monitored by the government to ensure they are brought to term.
And do you really think that people would be comfortable with deeming women and their abortion doctors guilty of "first-degree murder"--and perhaps eligible for the death penalty?
"The issue is whether an entity, simply by virtue simply of being alive, should be granted complete personhood status under the law."
And the answer to that 'issue' is "Hells yeah, dawg!" People used to have the same intellectual struggles over people they referred to as 'negroes'. We know how we regard such people nowadays.
Here's how I'd deal with your thought-provoking thought experiment. I'd put the fire out with a fire extinguisher, then I'd report you for setting a hospital on fire.
A "negro" is a fully formed, autonomous human being. In its earliest stage, a zygote is an undifferentiated mass of cells. It has the POTENTIAL to become a person, but one would be hard pressed to give it the same moral or legal status as, say, a five-year-old girl. Mississippi just showed us that even most hardcore pro-lifers don't want to go THAT far.
@ClumsyRoot The recently fertilized egg is a person at the earliest form of development. Just like a toddler is not a pre-schooler, the pre-schooler's not an adolescent, etc.
One might have said once upon a time that one would be hard pressed to define a 'negro' as a full person, and so one didn't. Now those ones look like shitheads. One day, when the unborn are accorded the respect we allocate older people, those who are 'hard pressed' today will be similarly scorned.
Believe me, I do see your point. The pro-life view IS philosophically consistent.
And yet, for fairly obvious reasons, people do not accord a "recently fertilized egg" the same moral or legal status as a fully developed human being (or even a well-developed fetus). Granted, it's ultimately an arbitrary decision where we set that cut-off point, but set it we do.
I'd like to hear your (serious) reaction to the thought experiment I presented, because I think it's important.
"Granted, it's ultimately an arbitrary decision where we set that cut-off point, but set it we do."
Yeah, we've done a lot of things over the course of history. Some good. Some awful. I think it's better when we act in ways that reflect what you call philosophical consistency. In fact, that's an excellent term. Let's be philosophically, and scientifically, consistent about this.
Your 'thought experiment' is a meaningless exercise in hypothetical nonsense and has no importance.
Again a useless Comments thread that's not even on topic re. the video;
The dolt with the camera is a frigging coward, badgering an older man who is exercising his right to protest. I am a former boxer & pro-life person who is, in some ways, different from most protestors. One day, this camera guy or someone like him is going to act that way with me & be in for quite a shock.
If you want to be intense & "in your face", at least pick the right side, dumbass. Abortion is MURDER.
After 1600 years of priest being allowed to marry suddenly the catholic church changed and demanded celibacy from it's clergy. Obviously your church can change circushead. Why not try to change it for the better?
@soulinite My Church troubles you. That's why you help spread lies. My church antagonizes you by speaking the truth. May she continue to do so, until you do what is just, and acknowledge the right to life of the unborn.
@circushead Remember when your church put a scientist in jail for discovering that the earth went around the sun? Perhaps given that history you should think a little bit more critically about what your church tells you?
Why not try thinking for yourself? You might like it.
@soulinite my Church is so fearful of science, how do you explain the Vatican Observatory?
But again, let's keep this debate closer to the issue of abortion. Why do you think infanticide is justifiable. I answer your questions. Why don't you answer that one?
@soulinite And again! You're a star! The rich irony is that you call for increased liberalization of the Church in response to a problem that was caused by liberalization of the Church in North America in the first place.
Anyway, none of it has anything to do with abortion, but I suppose it provides a welcome diversion for anyone, like you, who knows what abortion is, but hasn't the sense or the guts to condemn it.
@soulinite My rational? You mean my rationale, right? Tolerating homosexual priests who wouldn't stay celibate led to the sex abuse.
The Irish abuse scandals were caused when human filth unworthy of the name 'priest' transgressed all bounds of human decency, decades ago, and the worldly institution that is the Church reacted in the way that worldly institutions tended to do back then, be they schools, churches, or athletic clubs.
But today, ppl. are only interested in nailing the Church.
@circushead Claiming abortion is infanticide is like claiming that burning a set of blue prints is arson.
I'd have a lot easier time believing your church was pro-science if it wasn't raging against stem cell research, hadn't locked up a scientist for being right about the earth going around the sun and hadn't claimed that the small pox vaccine was "of the devil" and "a violation of God's will".
@soulinite That's a terrible analogy, doofus. If life doesn't begin at conception, pray tell me when does it actually begin. And if it begins at conception, then surely abortion is murder.
My Church does not 'rage' against stem cell science. In fact, it encourages adult stem cell research. It merely objects to the destruction of life in the pursuit of research. Because my Church is consistent. Not like you, who weeps for some children, yet strangely not for others.
@circushead Taking away women's reproductive liberty causes death and suffering on an unimaginable scale. Again, not being a crazy, I don't think a group of aged virgins should be treated as the ultimate authority on human sexuality. Especially if those aged virgins value dogma more then the lives of AIDS victims or women just want control over their own bodies.
@soulinite No, actually abortion causes death and suffering on an unimaginable scale. You used the term 'mothers' to describe those who seek abortions. You thereby acknowledged the humanity of the victims. You're nasty.
@soulinite I'd be interested in knowing when the Vatican condemned the small pox vaccine. In other words, I'm saying the Vatican has NEVER condemned the small pox vaccine. They object to any vaccine derived from human fetuses, of course, which is consistent with their pro-life position, but characterizing the Vatican as anti-vaccination of any disease is disingenuous, and I think you know this. You're probably isolating some comment of an individual priest and conveniently ascribing it.
You are not "pro-life" when it requires your church to give up some of it's control over it's follower's sexuality. You are also not "pro-life" in the case of women who need safe and legal abortion so that they don't die a preventable death.
@soulinite I am pro-life across the board and unreservedly. I oppose abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, and all the bells and whistles of the culture of death. I follow the lead of my Church, which remains an unwavering beacon for this truth, and continues to irritate the likes of you. Go on. Be irritated. We're not going away. We've been promised that the gates of hell themselves shall not prevail against us.
Each and every abortion is a preventable death, worldly hypocrite.
@circushead "which remains an unwavering beacon for this truth,"
So when the pope said the the sun revolved around the earth he was correct? Just because you aren't willing to admit to yourself that your church has been wrong doesn't it hasn't been.
What about when the church was burning witches, torturing jews, sucking up to dictators or leading crusades? Was it an "unwavering beacon for this truth" then?
@soulinite You believe in rule of law, right? Innocent until proven guilty? Or is that only for people who aren't Catholic priests. The transgressions that you mention are ALLEGED, as yet unproven, to have occurred 20 years ago. New cases are brought forward, but the filth, the practicing homosexual priests admitted in an era of hare-brained liberalism in the Western Catholic churches, has been rooted out, thanks in no small part to our present pontiff.
@circushead When they priest are convicted will you come back to to this board and admit you were wrong or will you plug your years and continue to deny reality?
@soulinite Wrong about what? You asked me if these things still go on, I told you that the filth has been rooted out, and you presented me with another case that has its roots in events that happened decades ago. Abortion, however, continues every day. Its victims, it seems, arouse none of your interest. Rather, you seem to take a sick kind of glee from them. Sad and tragic. Dear Jesus, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of your mercy.
@circushead If a women you loved died a preventable death from a back alley abortion do you think you'd change your tune or would you see her death as a necessary part of enforcing your "culture of life" on everyone else.
Why do you think your church (run by a bunch of doddering old virgins who've never seen a vagina) is in a position to make sexual choices for every human on the planet?
@soulinite A murder is no less a murder because it is committed in a hospital and funded by tax money. Rather, that murder becomes, in a way, even more reprehensible. Why do you support such murders?
@circushead Every child abused by clergy and every one on the planet who wouldn't have gotten AIDS if they'd had access to condoms and sex education are undebatably alive.
For 1600 years priest could get married. Why not call the last 400 years a failed experiment and gradually let the sanity trickle back into Catholic leadership.
@soulinite Which happened decades ago, and was perpetrated by filth unworthy of the name 'priest'. You asked me if I believe such things still go on. My reply was and is that it's been stopped because the liberalizing trend that encouraged homosexualist filth to do its work within the Church has been identified and is being expunged. The tragic experiment is over.
@circushead The Pope helped cover up the abuse of 200 deaf boy and refused to defrock the priest who did it. If the current Pope hasn't been rooted out then obviously you haven't fixed the problem as your church's executive officer is still there.
How many more children have to be raped by your clergy before you realize they do not represent divine authority(unless God is a pedophile as well).
@circushead Why is it that no matte what happens the religious right always tries to pin it on gay people? You realize that homophobia has been linked to homosexual arousal right? Remember that next time you get reactionary over other peoples personal lives.
@soulinite Any objective review of the pedophile scandals leads to the inevitable conclusion that it's inseparable from the presence of homosexualist priests who refused to live celibately. That's not homophobia, which is a meaningless word designed merely to squelch debate. That's just fact.
@soulinite As I've said many times, the pedophile homosexualists have been rooted out. Problem solved, except for the frame-ups and false accusations eagerly believed by Catholic-haters such as yourself.
@circushead you have yet to address my point. if the only priests molesting children were 'homosexualists', whatever that is supposed to mean, who diddled the little girls?
@holdenbane but more likely than not the real reason is the simple fact that practically like 98% of children who serve in the church tend to be boys. My sister and I (I am a guy.....) were altar servers. Before you ask no I wasn't touched by a naughty priest, though there was a hot Sunday School teacher, its just too bad she had a mean attitude. My sister was an exception of course but children who are victimized aren't typically run of the mill parishioners, but children serving the church....
People hate pedophiles of all strips but it is particularly disgusting when those pedophiles, and the organization that empowers and protects them , claims to hold all the answer in terms of morality.
@soulinite Boys weren't the only ones abused by clergy, sports coaches, teachers, music instructors, etc. Girls were, too. But most were boys, true, because most of the abusers were homosexuals.
But decades ago we didn't know what we now know about pedos. In fact, we thought it was curable. Now we know better. But, in retrospect, institutions thirty and forty years ago did a poor job, by our standards, of dealing with it.
Not that anyone wants to nail any of them except the Church, mind.
@circushead So for how many years did your church protect pedophiles(allowing them to abuse more children)? Do you really think the abuse has stopped? Why didn't your current pope defrock the priest who abused 200 deaf boys?
So you are admitting that your church put it's clergy and reputation ahead of the children of it's laity? Great! now can we get you to admit that your church is putting dogma ahead of peoples lives?
Yes, I do. The filth has been rooted out. The homosexual priests who won't be celibate are finally being expelled. The lucrative legal industry of focusing exclusively on the victims of Catholic priests from decades ago, part of the secular campaign against the Church whose moral stances irritate them, continues, but the abuse has stopped, thank God. Abortion, though, that goes on. And fuels your sick joy. But there will be a reckoning.
@soulinite Today, people are only interested in making the Church pay, because only the RC Church contradicts the edicts of the culture of death, which embraces things like abortion, and carpet bombing Africans with condoms.
@soulinite I don't take my theological instruction or religious issues interpretation from The Toronto Star or the New York Times, and frankly, neither should you if you're interested in context. Those organs are just preaching to the unconverted.
Actually, I was showing how the Bible is such a contradiction to what most Christian fundamentalists believe. Then those same people go out and use the Bible as a source for facts, and try to use it as a weapon, believing that God MUST be on their side. You do realize that the Bible is wrong about so many things that we now know as fact. So, why would someone believe the word of an infallible God that is constantly wrong about basic things?
@GodPrefersAnAtheist I honestly don't believe you're in a position to make any accurate, all-encompassing statements about either the Bible or Christianity as a tradition. I base this observation on your own writing. Sorry to be so harsh. That's just the truth. You're taking the easy way out, as I suppose you always have.
@circushead You're good for a bit of a laugh. So, I out-witted you (tying this all back to our original fight), and instead of defending ANY of what I said, you just say that I'm not an authority to make judgments on your "good book". Well, I have more of an education than 99% of your "pastors", which mainly requires only a high school education (if even that). And so why are you such an authority on it, and I'm not? Apparently, you deem yourself worthy of commenting, and detest me for doing so
@circushead You seem to think I didn't, but I certainly did. I can go up and say someone is wrong and make them look the fool, as well. I know this is a weird analogy, but it's very fitting. In the movie Billy Madison, Billy tries to speak to a girl in his class, but she doesn't want to talk with him. Feeling slighted, he very loudly says, "No, I will not make-out with you! I'm here to learn, not make-out with you!" So, people then think it was the girl's doing, though we know better.
@circushead And this is exactly what you do. Rather than intelligently defending a position, you make an outrages claim or question (like "You want to make out with me?") that I never said anything of the like, and I then now have to defend myself, rather than demanding to actually give me a reply or answer to my previous post. You dance around the issues, when you should be tackling them head-on.
@circushead Christianity as a tradition? Well, considering that you stole many of your "traditions" from Pagan practices, I doubt you're an authority, either. Also, your religion plagiarized the story of the Egyptian god Horus from 4000 B.C.E. Examples: Horus was born of the virgin Isis, a teacher at age 12, baptized by Anup at age 30, healed the sick, walked on water, known as "Lamb of God", was crucified, dead for three days, resurrected. Sound like anyone YOU worship?
@GodPrefersAnAtheist "I know you are but what am I" isn't a terribly effective means of argument.
The accomplishment of Jesus Christ is the central event of human history. That's why it's never surprised me, or indeed many eminent scholars, that His story was anticipated by other cultures in earlier times.
@circushead That is absolutely NOT an argument. You have no proof and it's just a circular way of reasoning so that no one can argue with you. "Well, God KNEW he was coming, and all of these people were fucking psychics, so they wrote shit down so that then Jesus came, we could say that they new all along." Quit talking shit. Someone looked back and stole ides from other cultures. Not someone had foresight and pre-wrote something down but with another figurehead. You just lost all credibility.
I saw Bob kill that fucking plant! Photosynthesized plants are life! He knocked a seed off of it which could have turned into plant LIFE! The humanity! Plants killers like this should be protested against. It says in the Bible: "The trees of the Lord are watered abundantly." -Psalm 104:14-21 Those are God's trees, you heathen. (All of this was sarcasm and hyperbole, by the way, in case you couldn't tell.)
@circushead Ah, good on you, mate. It IS indeed the lowest form of wit. However, you forgot that it's also the highest form of intelligence. To analyze something from a different point-of-view takes wisdom. Being Christian, education is a tad hard for you to understand, but google it, you may learn something. And by the way, if you're going to quote someone who supposedly said something, at least site them for it. E.g. Oscar Wilde "supposedly" said the exact same thing that you did, cunt.
@GodPrefersAnAtheist How can something be the lowest form of wit AND the highest form of intelligence at the same time? Do you not see the contradiction there? Are you on the Charlie Sheen or something? Oscar Wilde certainly did not originate the observation 'Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit'. If you knew anything about Wilde, you'd know that such a pedestrian observation as that was much below his genius. That's why I did not 'CITE' him. Not 'SITE'. 'CITE'. Thus endeth the lesson.
@circushead Ah, typos must not exist where you are. You see, in proper typing, those are both done on the left hand. Cheers for finding that, though. Actually, the difference between "wit" and "intelligence is quite astounding. "Wit" is merely the perception of events. "Intelligence" is the aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. What you're doing by trying to demean me with petty "class dismissed" comments is high-class humour in your area? Brilliant stuff, mate.
@GodPrefersAnAtheist That's no typo. You've just not read sufficiently to know the difference between cite and site. You approach an argument with me with a wholly unearned sense of superiority, because you assume that anyone who declares himself an atheist must naturally be more erudite than anyone professing a belief in God. Your overconfidence makes your errors doubly embarrassing.
@circushead Still on the attack, eh? Well, if that's the kind of conversation it's going to be... Your name is fucking "Circushead". Makes perfect sense, because you act like a fucking clown. Why don't you go cry about how your daddy and you had late night "cuddle times" together, you fucking cunt of a person. See, that's exactly how ALL of your posts are. No facts or arguments, just a barrage of insults to make yourself feel superior.
@GodPrefersAnAtheist You, on the other hand, are a paragon of Socratic logic. Is it too late for you to get at least a partial refund on any school fees your parents parted with in the process of your education? Because all the justification they need for such a refund is available for perusal right here.
@circushead Look who owns a Thesaurus. Cheers, mate. You must have spent ages looking those up. I'm proud of your dedication, though. You STILL haven't made one valid argument, though. You're all "attack", just like Fox News or any conservative person. Right-Wing and Christian people all have this circular way of speaking that revolves around the truth, but never quite seems to touch it. You go out on tangents, that in no way touch base with what is being discussed.
@GodPrefersAnAtheist You resent learning, don't you? People who know the difference between simple words like 'cite' and 'site' really bring out your insecurity. I've noticed that about you. It's sad.
@circushead Still didn't see an argument in that last statement. It takes a truly uneducated person to make NUMEROUS statements in response to an original posting, and not come up with one bit of a coherent response.
@GodPrefersAnAtheist You never made any arguments. You cut and pasted some quotations from a book you haven't read and don't even wish to understand. That's not an argument.
@circushead The Bible says that the Earth is the center of the universe. Untrue. It says that bats are birds. Untrue, they're mammals. Jesus said a LOT more about divorce than he did about homosexuality, yet Christians decide to attack homosexuality constantly, but I have yet to see one protest out of a divorce lawyers office. Pick and choose what you want from the Bible and use it as a weapon...THAT'S the Christian way.
@circushead Bigot against Christians, is it? I could say the same about you with Atheists. And I didn't see any refute for my statement following this one in which you replied. It's hard to defend something that is such a blatant piece of fiction, isn't it? And for the hundredth time, you're more than welcome to make arguments and not just petty insults.
@soulinite 1. No. 2. I think my Church is correct in their condom stance. I don't believe that Africans are mere animals incapable of self-control who must be carpet-bombed with latex devices. I think my Church's position of caring for AIDS sufferers (1 in 2 AIDS sufferers in Africa are cared for by offices of the Catholic Church, isn't that astounding?) and teaching moral responsibility and respect for the self and others to people is the best policy. Handing out condoms isn't.
@soulinite No, I'm not. Because my Church teaches abstinence and monogamy. If every followed my Church's teaching on these matters, there would not be an AIDS crisis. Your thinking is logically impaired.
@circushead "your thinking is logically impaired"
More so then thinking a bunch of celibate old virgins should be giving anybody advice on sex?
Meanwhile in the real world condoms reduce the spread of HIV while preaching an unrealistic ideal(that even the clergy of the catholic church can't live up to) and promoting ignorance about human sexuality allows plagues like AIDS to flourish.
"Meanwhile in the real world condoms reduce the spread of HIV "
Actually, no, they don't. My Church insists on treating people like people, not like beasts. That must be why it's the fastest growing religion in Africa.
@soulinite Any practice that endorses promiscuity will lead to more promiscuity, often without the latex devices, and AIDS will continue to spread. This is why condom strategies are all failures.
@circushead If condom strategies are "all failures" then how do you explain the stats that prove good sex ed and access to condoms curb the spread of HIV?
I think it's sad that your church would rather cling to dogma then save lives.
@soulinite If my Church were only interested in dogma, they wouldn't have bothered to establish the agencies and infrastructure that cares for fully one in two of the AIDS sufferers on the African continent, would they? They'd just stay in a remote place, talking about it. Like, say, YOU do.
@soulinite Yes, Jesus is the Good Shepherd and I am in His flock. Proud to say it. You treat people like beasts when you conclude that they are unable to control their urges and treat themselves with respect, and you carpet bomb them with latex devices. My Church doesn't do that. It disturbs you.
@soulinite Do you see any irony in shedding your crocodile tears for sexually abused children when you're an enthusiastic cheerleader for the process of vacuuming children under nine months old from their very wombs?
Condoms do not reduced the spread of AIDS. They maintain promiscuity. And promiscuity spreads AIDS and other problems.
You don't understand, either willfully or naively, the nature of what it is to be in the flock of the Good Shepherd. Look into it. And leave babies alone.
@circushead In the real world condoms reduce the spread of AIDS while your church spreading ignorance leads to more death.
You might want to check out the studies that compare STD rates among people who've been given comprehensive sex education to people who only get "abstinence only"?
Again, why should we listen to anything a group of doddering old virgins have to say about sex?
That's like getting tanning advice from a mole person.
"Again, why should we listen to anything a group of doddering old virgins have to say about sex?"
I'm almost certain you'd have no objection if they happened to be celibate spiritual advisors of another faith.
But, to extend your analogy, how many advocates for the homeless are actually homeless, shit-for-brains? Furthermore, are you African? Doubt it. So why should they listen to you?
But, back to the issue. Why do you find murder acceptable in select cases?
I don't consider celibacy to be a natural or realistic way to live. If you chase nature out the front door it's going to sneak in a window(and maybe rape your kids). Celibate old men who haven't left Vatican city in many decades and who live at variance with their own biology give bad advice about sex(like telling people condoms cause AIDS).
I think everyone should have access to birth control and comprehensive sex ed so that they can make informed choices about their own sexuality.
"I don't consider celibacy to be a natural or realistic way to live."
Uh huh. And you consider unborn children fair game for murder if they're inconvenient. Your judgment is probably impaired in a lot of other ways as well.
@soulinite You're really into talking about child rape, aren't you. I'd think that meditating on child slaughter would be enough for you, but I guess I'd be wrong.
@soulinite I've always denied bullshit. Must be genetic or something. Do you deny that abstinence and monogamy stems the spread of AIDS and other diseases? Because that's what my Church teaches.
@soulinite How long have you believed that Africans are incapable of love, self-control and mutual respect that is counseled by the Catholic Church as the road to spiritual and physical health and happiness for all people? I guess what I'm really asking, Condom Man, is this: have you always been such a virulent racist?
@circushead How does wanting all people to have access to birth control and comprehensive sex education so that they can make an informed choice about their own sexuality make me a racist?
I guess if you live in a world were old virgins are authorities on sex and that condoms cause AIDS that make sense.
@soulinite You're a racist because you apparently think it impossible that Africans can ever be expected to control their own urges. Africans are black. Therefore, you're a racist.
@circushead African's come in many different colours and what part of "I think every human on the planet should be given access to birth control and comprehensive sex ed so they can be empowered to maker their own informed choices about their sexuality" do you not understand?
@soulinite Hi racist. How are you today? Why do you think Africans are intemperate beasts. Don't you know that they're creatures created by God, equal in all ways to us.
@circushead How does wanting everyone on earth to have access to birth control and comprehensive sex ed make me a racist? Why are you against giving people the information they need to protect themselves and their community?
If your church valued life instead of dogma and control of it's followers personally lives' there would be free condoms next the holy water.
@circushead Remember that all the children your church has raped are undebatable alive. As are the women who die from unsafe abortion.
Do you not see that all this dogma is just a transparent ploy to give your church control over it's followers sexuality? Instead of treating people like children and trying to frighten them into your way of thinking why not empower them with the information that would allow them to make their own informed choices.
@soulinite The unborn children who you gleefully counsel as fair game for murder are also undeniably alive. I asked you, if life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin. You've offered no answer, therefore you must agree with me that life does begin at conception, but fuck those little kids. Kill 'em if they can't fight back. Therefore, I question your 'compassion' for child victims of any age.
Why don't you take all this energy you are using to try to take away women's rights and put that towards trying to reform your church so that its clergy rapes fewer children?
@circushead I don't hate Catholics. I hate Rome's regressive policies that cause needles suffering and death. Like the ones that cause children to be raped(and then to have those rapes covered up to protect the church's reputation).
It's sort of like the "love the sinner hate the sin" thing you guys use when you say homophobic things. Except of coarse that I'm genuine about it.
The bullying of an elderly man by the camera man shouldn't be surprising. Once you've decided that it's fun to advocated for the murder of defenseless unborn children, it's only a matter of time before you seek out new targets, and you can bet that those targets will be soft ones. The elderly, the physically unable, the mentally retarded. The different. These will be the natural targets of derision and of eventual elimination by our modern day eugenicists, such as the gutless videographer.
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
I'd say that's an unfair generalization, and contradicted by experience.
I don't know of a single pro-choicer who would approve of that kind of behavior. I'd also point out that the majority of social workers and educators who choose to dedicate their lives working with "the elderly, the physically unable, and the mentally retarded" tend to be socially liberal, meaning they are usually pro-choice.
The videographer's just an asshole, plain and simple.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot
It's not an unfair generalization, and in fact the truth of it will be born out as euthanasia replaces abortion as the crucial moral question of this century with respect to respect for life. If you deny the dignity of personhood to the unborn child out of pure discrimination, who's next?
Pro-choice you say? You mean pro-abortion, right? Because none of the pro-lifers I know have anything against salad bars or being able to choose a car in the colour of your choice.
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
"Pro-choice," "pro-abortion." It's just semantics.
There is a huge qualitative difference between abortion and euthanasia. The former deals with the morality of ending the life of an unborn baby WITHOUT THE BABY'S CONSENT. The latter is an end-of-life issue and addresses the question of who has final say in the matter--the individual or the state.
It's a bit lazy to lump disparate issues together under the vague rubric of "respect for life."
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot No, you're wrong. "Pro-choice" is a completely inaccurate term if used to describe abortion advocacy. It is imprecise, and it is misleading in that it implies that pro-life people oppose free will. Further, it serves as a euphemism, allowing abortion advocates to deny the horror of the act. To be, in your words, philosophically consistent, you should never use the term 'pro-choice' to describe abortion advocacy.
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
Like I said, each side uses the label that serves its purposes.
My problem with the term "pro-abortion" is that it ignores the fact that most people who acknowledge a woman's right to choose are still very uncomfortable with abortion itself. Ultimately, they'd like to see fewer abortions take place (which requires reducing unwanted pregnancies).
By your reasoning, "pro-life" is also imprecise, since it implies that abortion advocates are somehow "anti-life" (or "pro-death").
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot
One term is evasive and self-deceptive, while the other term is accurate and consistent and true.
"Pro-life" is an eminently accurate term. Pro-life people stand for the dignity and right to life of individuals, however inconvenient, elderly, imperfect, or "unproductive" those individuals may be.
Abortion advocates most certainly are anti-life, or anti-life they deem undeserving.
Anyone who honestly looks at abortion is 'uncomfortable' with it.
Abortion is monstrous and evil.
circushead 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot You say that people who support abortion would ultimately like to see fewer abortions take place.
Why? If abortion is not wrong, why would they like fewer to take place?
The only reason someone would want fewer of something to take place is because that thing is wrong.
And if abortion is wrong, then surely it's wrong for even one to take place.
So which is it?
Please, a little philosophical consistency would be nice.
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
Yes, people who support abortion rights often have mixed feelings about abortion itself. I think of Clinton's desire to keep abortion "safe, legal, and rare." The inclusion of that last word is a tacit acknowledgement that there is a moral component to the issue.
Abortion is a unique moral issue. Because life comes from life, a conflict immediately emerges: the "right" of a woman to have autonomy over her own body, versus the "right" of a child to be born.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot If people want abortion to be 'rare', I want to know why. If they want it to be rare because it destroys life (and harms the mother), then I want to know why they only want it to be rare, and not non-existent.
I don't want murder to be 'safe, legal, and rare'. I want it to be illegal and I don't want anyone to do it to me or anyone else.
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
This can't go forward until you address my thought experiment. It's fun to talk in ideals and abstractions, but when the rubber hits the road, things get more complicated.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot There's no greater abstraction than playing useless hypothetical thought experiment "What if you were in a hospital fire" game.
What would make the "rubber hit the road" is if you addressed the moral dilemma of giving something a moral pass while simultaneously expressing a desire for fewer instances of it.
What's that about? What kind of sense does that make? 'Safe, legal and rare', what rot!
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
On the contrary, such thought experiments help to clarify decisions made in REAL-WORLD (if at times contrived) situations. It's one thing to claim the moral equivalence of a zygote with a person; it's another to actually behave as if that were the case.
Why won't you answer the question? Is it because you, like any other morally decent person, would choose to save the child rather than the embryos?
Yes--abortion involves a moral dilemma! That's my point.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot Yes, abortion presents a moral dilemma. Many choices in life do. You can choose good, or you can choose evil. You can excuse murder of the inconvenient, or you can condemn murder of the inconvenient. It's up to you. It's your choice.
circushead 2 months ago
Comment removed
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circushead
You still haven't addressed the thought experiment. :)
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot I haven't told you why I don't play golf, either. I find both playing golf and your 'thought experiment' to be wastes of my time.
You haven't told me why anyone would blithely accept the mantra "safe, legal and rare" for abortion.
If there's nothing wrong with abortion, why would anyone care to make them rare. And if abortion is actually murder, why would anyone condone them.
The only answer is "it's murder, but screw those babies, they're little." Bad argument, IMHO.
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
I suspect you didn't address the question because you knew your answer would contradict your claim that an embryo and a child are due equal moral consideration.
I never said "there's nothing wrong with abortion." I was pointing out the inconsistency of those who would want it "rare" and still maintain that it has no moral implications.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot
"I was pointing out the inconsistency of those who would want it "rare" and still maintain that it has no moral implications."
I agree. I thought you were endorsing that position.
Here's my position: life begins at conception. An unborn child is a person and has the right to life. Calling the child an embryo doesn't deny it that right, nor does the fact that the child not an adult woman.
Also, I try to avoid hypothetical hospitals especially when they are aflame.
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
You continue to make jokes in order to avoid a fair but uncomfortable question.
If you tell me that you'd carry out the vat of embryos and leave behind the five-year-old girl to burn to death, then I will grant that you are completely consistent on this issue. Until then, I can't help but conclude that you're evading.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot Your hypothetical exercise is a very real waste of time, signifying nothing,
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
On the contrary, it's a reality check that helps to underscore the fact that "pure" ideals held in the abstract (usually, but not always, for religious reasons) are often at odds with real-world moral decisions.
Let's face it, you'd save the little girl. How do you reconcile such a action with your stated principles?
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@circushead
When I said abortion presents a dilemma, I mean that there are competing factors at play. Am I ready to give the state the power to take authority over a woman's body and force her to bring her pregnancy to term? Honestly, I find that idea a bit scary. There are serious pragmatic difficulties in making abortion illegal; it's not as if simply banning the practice would make it go away.
I'd rather focus on policies that reduce unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot You want the government to stop people from fucking? Don't you find that a tad draconian?
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
"You want the government to stop people from fucking?" How on earth did you get THAT out of what I wrote? If it's not obvious to you yet, I'm a libertarian at heart.
I'd like to see people show more responsibility when it comes to sex. To that end, I support public policies that encourage the correct use of contraception.
People are going to fuck--we know this from experience. And the fact remains that the best way to reduce abortions is to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot You said you'd like to focus on policies that reduce unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Since you think that if abortion was illegal it would result in the government monitoring women's bodies, I guess that policies reducing unwanted pregnancies would mean the government would have to monitor sexual congress.
There's no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy. We know what comes of intercourse. The baby they create wants to be alive. There's an adoption waiting list.
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
You seem intent upon misunderstanding me.
I don't want the government to "monitor sexual congress" or require people to use birth control, any more than I want it to force women to have children they don't want. In a free society, such decisions must be made by the individuals involved.
What I would like is for people to be educated about contraception and have easy (ideally, free) access to it. What they do after that is up to them.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ClumsyRoot
If the women didn't want the children, they shouldn't have had sex. Be pro-choice, before the conception.
"What I would like is for people to be educated about contraception and have easy (ideally, free) access to it."
They do. They have for years. That's about all they have. But guess what? More screwing means more pregnancies.
And once a life is conceived, it deserves respect and protection.
circushead 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot You think I'm lazy? No, I'm morally and philosophically consistent by seeing the link between abortion and euthanasia. You're being obtuse in pretending not to see the link. The issue of euthanasia will start out framed as a matter of personal choice. Those who advocate it will be "pro-choice", but euthanasia will soon enough by embraced by the state as a means of dealing with the undesirable, the imperfect, and the expensive.
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
Slippery-slope fallacy. Where is your evidence that allowing people who are terminally ill the opportunity to end their lives early will lead to euthanasia being "embraced by the state"? Has this happened in the Western European countries that allow it? Not at all. The whole POINT is to give individuals autonomy over their own lives--to keep the state out of the process entirely.
A consistency that relies on the oversimplification of complex issues is a false consistency.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot
Have you ever been on a slippery slope? If you ever had, you'd know it's not a fallacy.
And don't label an entirely reasonable analysis "oversimplification" merely because you feel obliged to disagree with it for political reasons.
The holocaust that is abortion has prepared the way for the next phase of grotesque inhumanity, euthanasia.
You don't like the term "respect for life", probably because it is such a concise rebuttal to the lies that sustain the culture of death.
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
"Respect for life," "culture of death"--sorry, but these are bumper-sticker slogans, and fail to grasp the complexity and nuance of reality.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot Pro-life people respect life. Respect for life is their motivation. They reject the culture of death, the culture which has normalized the holocaust that is abortion. These are simple truths. You search for 'nuance' because you cannot, I suppose, look at truth head on. The truth disturbs you. Yet if you objectively read your own writing it would be obvious to you.
"Pro-choice" people, you say, desire fewer abortions.
Well, why on earth would they? Unless abortion is...wrong.
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
Bald assertions are no substitute for arguments and evidence.
I've noticed that a lot of people treat life as if it's an abstraction. They seem to value the concept of life more than the actual act of living.
If you've ever watched a love one writhing in agony as they died of bone cancer, you might be a bit more receptive to the idea that, sometimes, death is preferable to life--and that the individual should be allowed to make that decision.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot Blow it out your ass. Do you reckon you're the only one who's ever been touched by cancer? Suffering is horrible, but dealing with problems by killing people is not the right answer.
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
I'm not talking about killing people. I'm talking about allowing individual human beings the option to end their own lives when they wish to. It's all about personal autonomy--individual freedom to decide one's own fate.
What am I supposed to blow out my ass? ;)
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot The bit about watching somebody suffer and die of bone cancer as if that's an argument for the acceptance of killing sick people. Blow that out your ass. You're not the only one who's ever been touched by cancer, and cancer isn't an argument for euthanasia.
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
I trust you can see the difference between ending someone else's life and ending your own.
If I'm ever in a situation in which I'm terminally ill and life has become unbearable, I want to have the option to end my life early. There is nothing noble about needless suffering. There comes a point for many people when life is no longer worth living.
The decision is ultimately the individual's. No one has a right to make those decisions for another person.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@circushead
I think you misunderstand; I have serious misgivings about abortion.
But what's the alternative? In a free society, an abortion ban would be unenforceable, short of instituting some type of police state in which women's pregnancies are monitored by the government to ensure they are brought to term.
And do you really think that people would be comfortable with deeming women and their abortion doctors guilty of "first-degree murder"--and perhaps eligible for the death penalty?
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot If you have 'misgivings' about abortion, because it's 'murder', then I urge you to 'oppose' it.
circushead 2 months ago
Which brings us back to my initial thought experiment, which you keep avoiding.
Would you save the 500 frozen embyros from the fire and leave the child to burn to death?
Does a human zygote have the same intrinsic value as a five-year-old child?
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
"The issue is whether an entity, simply by virtue simply of being alive, should be granted complete personhood status under the law."
And the answer to that 'issue' is "Hells yeah, dawg!" People used to have the same intellectual struggles over people they referred to as 'negroes'. We know how we regard such people nowadays.
Here's how I'd deal with your thought-provoking thought experiment. I'd put the fire out with a fire extinguisher, then I'd report you for setting a hospital on fire.
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
LOL! Hey, I didn't say I STARTED the fire! :)
A "negro" is a fully formed, autonomous human being. In its earliest stage, a zygote is an undifferentiated mass of cells. It has the POTENTIAL to become a person, but one would be hard pressed to give it the same moral or legal status as, say, a five-year-old girl. Mississippi just showed us that even most hardcore pro-lifers don't want to go THAT far.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot The recently fertilized egg is a person at the earliest form of development. Just like a toddler is not a pre-schooler, the pre-schooler's not an adolescent, etc.
One might have said once upon a time that one would be hard pressed to define a 'negro' as a full person, and so one didn't. Now those ones look like shitheads. One day, when the unborn are accorded the respect we allocate older people, those who are 'hard pressed' today will be similarly scorned.
circushead 2 months ago
@circushead
Believe me, I do see your point. The pro-life view IS philosophically consistent.
And yet, for fairly obvious reasons, people do not accord a "recently fertilized egg" the same moral or legal status as a fully developed human being (or even a well-developed fetus). Granted, it's ultimately an arbitrary decision where we set that cut-off point, but set it we do.
I'd like to hear your (serious) reaction to the thought experiment I presented, because I think it's important.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
@ClumsyRoot
"Granted, it's ultimately an arbitrary decision where we set that cut-off point, but set it we do."
Yeah, we've done a lot of things over the course of history. Some good. Some awful. I think it's better when we act in ways that reflect what you call philosophical consistency. In fact, that's an excellent term. Let's be philosophically, and scientifically, consistent about this.
Your 'thought experiment' is a meaningless exercise in hypothetical nonsense and has no importance.
circushead 2 months ago
Picking on an old man? WEAK.
ClumsyRoot 2 months ago
Again a useless Comments thread that's not even on topic re. the video;
The dolt with the camera is a frigging coward, badgering an older man who is exercising his right to protest. I am a former boxer & pro-life person who is, in some ways, different from most protestors. One day, this camera guy or someone like him is going to act that way with me & be in for quite a shock.
If you want to be intense & "in your face", at least pick the right side, dumbass. Abortion is MURDER.
FlyUnicornsFly 3 months ago
Comment removed
FlyUnicornsFly 3 months ago
abortion is fucking sexy,
DannyGloverIsAwesome 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The grand jury believed that more than 30 priests remained in ministry in Pennsylvania despite solid, credible allegations of abuse,"
religion*blogs*cnn*com/2011/03/08/21-priests-put-on-leave-after-review-of-suspected-child-sexual-abuse/
soulinite 10 months ago
After 1600 years of priest being allowed to marry suddenly the catholic church changed and demanded celibacy from it's clergy. Obviously your church can change circushead. Why not try to change it for the better?
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite My Church troubles you. That's why you help spread lies. My church antagonizes you by speaking the truth. May she continue to do so, until you do what is just, and acknowledge the right to life of the unborn.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead Remember when your church put a scientist in jail for discovering that the earth went around the sun? Perhaps given that history you should think a little bit more critically about what your church tells you?
Why not try thinking for yourself? You might like it.
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite Why no. Because it happened centuries ago, and you completely misunderstand the context.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead I'd love to know what context you think makes it okay for your church to jail a scientist for being right.
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite Again, what you think you know about Copernicus is mistaken. You should look it up sometime.
circushead 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@soulinite my Church is so fearful of science, how do you explain the Vatican Observatory?
But again, let's keep this debate closer to the issue of abortion. Why do you think infanticide is justifiable. I answer your questions. Why don't you answer that one?
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead
3w*thestar*com/news/world/article/785071--pope-wouldn-t-discipline-priest-who-abused-200-deaf-boys
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite And again! You're a star! The rich irony is that you call for increased liberalization of the Church in response to a problem that was caused by liberalization of the Church in North America in the first place.
Anyway, none of it has anything to do with abortion, but I suppose it provides a welcome diversion for anyone, like you, who knows what abortion is, but hasn't the sense or the guts to condemn it.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead I'd love to know your rational for claiming that priest raping boys was caused by "liberalization of the church in North America"?
How do you explain the Irish sex abuse scandals?
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite My rational? You mean my rationale, right? Tolerating homosexual priests who wouldn't stay celibate led to the sex abuse.
The Irish abuse scandals were caused when human filth unworthy of the name 'priest' transgressed all bounds of human decency, decades ago, and the worldly institution that is the Church reacted in the way that worldly institutions tended to do back then, be they schools, churches, or athletic clubs.
But today, ppl. are only interested in nailing the Church.
circushead 10 months ago
Comment removed
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead Claiming abortion is infanticide is like claiming that burning a set of blue prints is arson.
I'd have a lot easier time believing your church was pro-science if it wasn't raging against stem cell research, hadn't locked up a scientist for being right about the earth going around the sun and hadn't claimed that the small pox vaccine was "of the devil" and "a violation of God's will".
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite That's a terrible analogy, doofus. If life doesn't begin at conception, pray tell me when does it actually begin. And if it begins at conception, then surely abortion is murder.
My Church does not 'rage' against stem cell science. In fact, it encourages adult stem cell research. It merely objects to the destruction of life in the pursuit of research. Because my Church is consistent. Not like you, who weeps for some children, yet strangely not for others.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead Taking away women's reproductive liberty causes death and suffering on an unimaginable scale. Again, not being a crazy, I don't think a group of aged virgins should be treated as the ultimate authority on human sexuality. Especially if those aged virgins value dogma more then the lives of AIDS victims or women just want control over their own bodies.
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite No, actually abortion causes death and suffering on an unimaginable scale. You used the term 'mothers' to describe those who seek abortions. You thereby acknowledged the humanity of the victims. You're nasty.
circushead 10 months ago
@soulinite I'd be interested in knowing when the Vatican condemned the small pox vaccine. In other words, I'm saying the Vatican has NEVER condemned the small pox vaccine. They object to any vaccine derived from human fetuses, of course, which is consistent with their pro-life position, but characterizing the Vatican as anti-vaccination of any disease is disingenuous, and I think you know this. You're probably isolating some comment of an individual priest and conveniently ascribing it.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead Would you hirer an Amish man who had never used modern technology to teach your kids to drive?
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite No, that'd be like hiring you to write analogies. An exercise in unintentional hilarity.
circushead 10 months ago
You are not "pro-life" when it requires your church to give up some of it's control over it's follower's sexuality. You are also not "pro-life" in the case of women who need safe and legal abortion so that they don't die a preventable death.
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite I am pro-life across the board and unreservedly. I oppose abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, and all the bells and whistles of the culture of death. I follow the lead of my Church, which remains an unwavering beacon for this truth, and continues to irritate the likes of you. Go on. Be irritated. We're not going away. We've been promised that the gates of hell themselves shall not prevail against us.
Each and every abortion is a preventable death, worldly hypocrite.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead "which remains an unwavering beacon for this truth,"
So when the pope said the the sun revolved around the earth he was correct? Just because you aren't willing to admit to yourself that your church has been wrong doesn't it hasn't been.
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite Hi Dan Brown. How are you today?
circushead 10 months ago
What about when the church was burning witches, torturing jews, sucking up to dictators or leading crusades? Was it an "unwavering beacon for this truth" then?
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite Hi Dan Brown. How are you today?
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead "The grand jury believed that more than 30 priests remained in ministry in Pennsylvania despite solid, credible allegations of abuse,"
religion*blogs*cnn*com/2011/03/08/21-priests-put-on-leave-after-review-of-suspected-child-sexual-abuse/
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite You believe in rule of law, right? Innocent until proven guilty? Or is that only for people who aren't Catholic priests. The transgressions that you mention are ALLEGED, as yet unproven, to have occurred 20 years ago. New cases are brought forward, but the filth, the practicing homosexual priests admitted in an era of hare-brained liberalism in the Western Catholic churches, has been rooted out, thanks in no small part to our present pontiff.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead When they priest are convicted will you come back to to this board and admit you were wrong or will you plug your years and continue to deny reality?
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite Wrong about what? You asked me if these things still go on, I told you that the filth has been rooted out, and you presented me with another case that has its roots in events that happened decades ago. Abortion, however, continues every day. Its victims, it seems, arouse none of your interest. Rather, you seem to take a sick kind of glee from them. Sad and tragic. Dear Jesus, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of your mercy.
circushead 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circushead "The grand jury believed that more than 30 priests remained in ministry in Pennsylvania despite solid, credible allegations of abuse,"
religion*blogs*cnn*com/2011/03/08/21-priests-put-on-leave-after-review-of-suspected-child-sexual-abuse/
Doesn't sound like "the filth has been rooted out" to me or the grand Jury.
soulinite 10 months ago
@circushead If a women you loved died a preventable death from a back alley abortion do you think you'd change your tune or would you see her death as a necessary part of enforcing your "culture of life" on everyone else.
Why do you think your church (run by a bunch of doddering old virgins who've never seen a vagina) is in a position to make sexual choices for every human on the planet?
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite A murder is no less a murder because it is committed in a hospital and funded by tax money. Rather, that murder becomes, in a way, even more reprehensible. Why do you support such murders?
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead Every child abused by clergy and every one on the planet who wouldn't have gotten AIDS if they'd had access to condoms and sex education are undebatably alive.
For 1600 years priest could get married. Why not call the last 400 years a failed experiment and gradually let the sanity trickle back into Catholic leadership.
soulinite 10 months ago
I've think we passed the "reasonable doubt" stage of the systemic sexual abuse about 200 deaf boys ago.
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite Which happened decades ago, and was perpetrated by filth unworthy of the name 'priest'. You asked me if I believe such things still go on. My reply was and is that it's been stopped because the liberalizing trend that encouraged homosexualist filth to do its work within the Church has been identified and is being expunged. The tragic experiment is over.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead The Pope helped cover up the abuse of 200 deaf boy and refused to defrock the priest who did it. If the current Pope hasn't been rooted out then obviously you haven't fixed the problem as your church's executive officer is still there.
How many more children have to be raped by your clergy before you realize they do not represent divine authority(unless God is a pedophile as well).
soulinite 10 months ago
@circushead Why is it that no matte what happens the religious right always tries to pin it on gay people? You realize that homophobia has been linked to homosexual arousal right? Remember that next time you get reactionary over other peoples personal lives.
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite Any objective review of the pedophile scandals leads to the inevitable conclusion that it's inseparable from the presence of homosexualist priests who refused to live celibately. That's not homophobia, which is a meaningless word designed merely to squelch debate. That's just fact.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead Do you think your pedophile run church might just be scapegoating on gay people once again?
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite As I've said many times, the pedophile homosexualists have been rooted out. Problem solved, except for the frame-ups and false accusations eagerly believed by Catholic-haters such as yourself.
circushead 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circushead "The grand jury believed that more than 30 priests remained in ministry in Pennsylvania despite solid, credible allegations of abuse,"
religion*blogs*cnn*com/2011/03/08/21-priests-put-on-leave-after-review-of-suspected-child-sexual-abuse/
soulinite 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circushead "The grand jury believed that more than 30 priests remained in ministry in Pennsylvania despite solid, credible allegations of abuse,"
religion*blogs*cnn*com/2011/03/08/21-priests-put-on-leave-after-review-of-suspected-child-sexual-abuse/
soulinite 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circushead "As I've said many times, the pedophile homosexualists have been rooted out."
which is an interesting concept because it wasn't just the little boys being molested. so let me guess, the homo-pedos went bi for the afternoon or?
holdenbane 10 months ago
@holdenbane The victims were overwhelmingly male.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead you have yet to address my point. if the only priests molesting children were 'homosexualists', whatever that is supposed to mean, who diddled the little girls?
holdenbane 10 months ago
@holdenbane Probably you did, creep.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead you are a moron. how many 21 year old girls do you know that molest children? leave the debate to the adults, little one.
holdenbane 9 months ago
@holdenbane the nuns?
SciBishop 4 months ago
@holdenbane but more likely than not the real reason is the simple fact that practically like 98% of children who serve in the church tend to be boys. My sister and I (I am a guy.....) were altar servers. Before you ask no I wasn't touched by a naughty priest, though there was a hot Sunday School teacher, its just too bad she had a mean attitude. My sister was an exception of course but children who are victimized aren't typically run of the mill parishioners, but children serving the church....
SciBishop 4 months ago
People hate pedophiles of all strips but it is particularly disgusting when those pedophiles, and the organization that empowers and protects them , claims to hold all the answer in terms of morality.
soulinite 10 months ago
@circushead So you admit your church covered up the sexual abuse of boys to protect it's reputation?
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite Boys weren't the only ones abused by clergy, sports coaches, teachers, music instructors, etc. Girls were, too. But most were boys, true, because most of the abusers were homosexuals.
But decades ago we didn't know what we now know about pedos. In fact, we thought it was curable. Now we know better. But, in retrospect, institutions thirty and forty years ago did a poor job, by our standards, of dealing with it.
Not that anyone wants to nail any of them except the Church, mind.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead So for how many years did your church protect pedophiles(allowing them to abuse more children)? Do you really think the abuse has stopped? Why didn't your current pope defrock the priest who abused 200 deaf boys?
So you are admitting that your church put it's clergy and reputation ahead of the children of it's laity? Great! now can we get you to admit that your church is putting dogma ahead of peoples lives?
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite
"Do you really think the abuse has stopped?"
Yes, I do. The filth has been rooted out. The homosexual priests who won't be celibate are finally being expelled. The lucrative legal industry of focusing exclusively on the victims of Catholic priests from decades ago, part of the secular campaign against the Church whose moral stances irritate them, continues, but the abuse has stopped, thank God. Abortion, though, that goes on. And fuels your sick joy. But there will be a reckoning.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead Another Catholic sex scandal just erupted in in pennsylvania and last month this happend in Philadelphia.
religion*blogs*cnn*com/2011/02/10/three-philadelphia-priests-teacher-charged-with-sexually-abusing-boys/
Are you starting to see how your beliefs are at variance with reality yet?
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite Today, people are only interested in making the Church pay, because only the RC Church contradicts the edicts of the culture of death, which embraces things like abortion, and carpet bombing Africans with condoms.
Got it? Don't like what I think? Tough shit!
circushead 10 months ago
@soulinite I don't take my theological instruction or religious issues interpretation from The Toronto Star or the New York Times, and frankly, neither should you if you're interested in context. Those organs are just preaching to the unconverted.
circushead 10 months ago
Actually, I was showing how the Bible is such a contradiction to what most Christian fundamentalists believe. Then those same people go out and use the Bible as a source for facts, and try to use it as a weapon, believing that God MUST be on their side. You do realize that the Bible is wrong about so many things that we now know as fact. So, why would someone believe the word of an infallible God that is constantly wrong about basic things?
GodPrefersAnAtheist 11 months ago
@GodPrefersAnAtheist I honestly don't believe you're in a position to make any accurate, all-encompassing statements about either the Bible or Christianity as a tradition. I base this observation on your own writing. Sorry to be so harsh. That's just the truth. You're taking the easy way out, as I suppose you always have.
circushead 11 months ago
@circushead You're good for a bit of a laugh. So, I out-witted you (tying this all back to our original fight), and instead of defending ANY of what I said, you just say that I'm not an authority to make judgments on your "good book". Well, I have more of an education than 99% of your "pastors", which mainly requires only a high school education (if even that). And so why are you such an authority on it, and I'm not? Apparently, you deem yourself worthy of commenting, and detest me for doing so
GodPrefersAnAtheist 11 months ago
@GodPrefersAnAtheist If you're so erudite, then why did you apparently have no clue whatsoever as to the context of that Psalm you quoted earlier?
circushead 11 months ago
@circushead You seem to think I didn't, but I certainly did. I can go up and say someone is wrong and make them look the fool, as well. I know this is a weird analogy, but it's very fitting. In the movie Billy Madison, Billy tries to speak to a girl in his class, but she doesn't want to talk with him. Feeling slighted, he very loudly says, "No, I will not make-out with you! I'm here to learn, not make-out with you!" So, people then think it was the girl's doing, though we know better.
GodPrefersAnAtheist 11 months ago
@circushead And this is exactly what you do. Rather than intelligently defending a position, you make an outrages claim or question (like "You want to make out with me?") that I never said anything of the like, and I then now have to defend myself, rather than demanding to actually give me a reply or answer to my previous post. You dance around the issues, when you should be tackling them head-on.
GodPrefersAnAtheist 11 months ago
@circushead Christianity as a tradition? Well, considering that you stole many of your "traditions" from Pagan practices, I doubt you're an authority, either. Also, your religion plagiarized the story of the Egyptian god Horus from 4000 B.C.E. Examples: Horus was born of the virgin Isis, a teacher at age 12, baptized by Anup at age 30, healed the sick, walked on water, known as "Lamb of God", was crucified, dead for three days, resurrected. Sound like anyone YOU worship?
GodPrefersAnAtheist 11 months ago
@GodPrefersAnAtheist "I know you are but what am I" isn't a terribly effective means of argument.
The accomplishment of Jesus Christ is the central event of human history. That's why it's never surprised me, or indeed many eminent scholars, that His story was anticipated by other cultures in earlier times.
circushead 11 months ago
@circushead That is absolutely NOT an argument. You have no proof and it's just a circular way of reasoning so that no one can argue with you. "Well, God KNEW he was coming, and all of these people were fucking psychics, so they wrote shit down so that then Jesus came, we could say that they new all along." Quit talking shit. Someone looked back and stole ides from other cultures. Not someone had foresight and pre-wrote something down but with another figurehead. You just lost all credibility.
GodPrefersAnAtheist 11 months ago
@GodPrefersAnAtheist I just lost credibility to a guy who uses Billy Madison analogies. Uh oh. Don't know if I'll be able to come back from this one.
circushead 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodPrefersAnAtheist I just lost credibility to a guy who uses Billy Madison analogies. Uh oh. Don't know if I'll be able to come back from this one.
circushead 11 months ago
I saw Bob kill that fucking plant! Photosynthesized plants are life! He knocked a seed off of it which could have turned into plant LIFE! The humanity! Plants killers like this should be protested against. It says in the Bible: "The trees of the Lord are watered abundantly." -Psalm 104:14-21 Those are God's trees, you heathen. (All of this was sarcasm and hyperbole, by the way, in case you couldn't tell.)
GodPrefersAnAtheist 11 months ago
@GodPrefersAnAtheist Of course we know it's sarcasm. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. What else would you resort to?
circushead 11 months ago
@circushead Ah, good on you, mate. It IS indeed the lowest form of wit. However, you forgot that it's also the highest form of intelligence. To analyze something from a different point-of-view takes wisdom. Being Christian, education is a tad hard for you to understand, but google it, you may learn something. And by the way, if you're going to quote someone who supposedly said something, at least site them for it. E.g. Oscar Wilde "supposedly" said the exact same thing that you did, cunt.
GodPrefersAnAtheist 11 months ago
@GodPrefersAnAtheist How can something be the lowest form of wit AND the highest form of intelligence at the same time? Do you not see the contradiction there? Are you on the Charlie Sheen or something? Oscar Wilde certainly did not originate the observation 'Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit'. If you knew anything about Wilde, you'd know that such a pedestrian observation as that was much below his genius. That's why I did not 'CITE' him. Not 'SITE'. 'CITE'. Thus endeth the lesson.
circushead 11 months ago
@circushead Ah, typos must not exist where you are. You see, in proper typing, those are both done on the left hand. Cheers for finding that, though. Actually, the difference between "wit" and "intelligence is quite astounding. "Wit" is merely the perception of events. "Intelligence" is the aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. What you're doing by trying to demean me with petty "class dismissed" comments is high-class humour in your area? Brilliant stuff, mate.
GodPrefersAnAtheist 11 months ago
@GodPrefersAnAtheist That's no typo. You've just not read sufficiently to know the difference between cite and site. You approach an argument with me with a wholly unearned sense of superiority, because you assume that anyone who declares himself an atheist must naturally be more erudite than anyone professing a belief in God. Your overconfidence makes your errors doubly embarrassing.
You're dumb. It shows.
circushead 11 months ago
@circushead Still on the attack, eh? Well, if that's the kind of conversation it's going to be... Your name is fucking "Circushead". Makes perfect sense, because you act like a fucking clown. Why don't you go cry about how your daddy and you had late night "cuddle times" together, you fucking cunt of a person. See, that's exactly how ALL of your posts are. No facts or arguments, just a barrage of insults to make yourself feel superior.
GodPrefersAnAtheist 11 months ago
@GodPrefersAnAtheist You, on the other hand, are a paragon of Socratic logic. Is it too late for you to get at least a partial refund on any school fees your parents parted with in the process of your education? Because all the justification they need for such a refund is available for perusal right here.
circushead 11 months ago
@circushead Look who owns a Thesaurus. Cheers, mate. You must have spent ages looking those up. I'm proud of your dedication, though. You STILL haven't made one valid argument, though. You're all "attack", just like Fox News or any conservative person. Right-Wing and Christian people all have this circular way of speaking that revolves around the truth, but never quite seems to touch it. You go out on tangents, that in no way touch base with what is being discussed.
GodPrefersAnAtheist 11 months ago
@GodPrefersAnAtheist You resent learning, don't you? People who know the difference between simple words like 'cite' and 'site' really bring out your insecurity. I've noticed that about you. It's sad.
circushead 11 months ago
@circushead Still didn't see an argument in that last statement. It takes a truly uneducated person to make NUMEROUS statements in response to an original posting, and not come up with one bit of a coherent response.
GodPrefersAnAtheist 11 months ago
@GodPrefersAnAtheist You never made any arguments. You cut and pasted some quotations from a book you haven't read and don't even wish to understand. That's not an argument.
circushead 11 months ago
@circushead The Bible says that the Earth is the center of the universe. Untrue. It says that bats are birds. Untrue, they're mammals. Jesus said a LOT more about divorce than he did about homosexuality, yet Christians decide to attack homosexuality constantly, but I have yet to see one protest out of a divorce lawyers office. Pick and choose what you want from the Bible and use it as a weapon...THAT'S the Christian way.
GodPrefersAnAtheist 11 months ago
@GodPrefersAnAtheist I see your approach to the New Testament is as simplistic as your approach to the Old Testament. Not surprising.
"Pick and choose what you want from the Bible and use it as a weapon...THAT'S the Christian way."
No, THAT'S a facile generalization made by a bigot who doesn't like Christians. That's not an argument either.
circushead 11 months ago
@circushead Bigot against Christians, is it? I could say the same about you with Atheists. And I didn't see any refute for my statement following this one in which you replied. It's hard to defend something that is such a blatant piece of fiction, isn't it? And for the hundredth time, you're more than welcome to make arguments and not just petty insults.
GodPrefersAnAtheist 11 months ago
@circushead Do you think the Catholic church is pumping you full of anti abortion rhetoric just to distract you from the various sex scandals?
If you are really pro-life then why don't you try to stop your church of discouraging the use of condoms in AIDS infected regions?
soulinite 11 months ago
@soulinite 1. No. 2. I think my Church is correct in their condom stance. I don't believe that Africans are mere animals incapable of self-control who must be carpet-bombed with latex devices. I think my Church's position of caring for AIDS sufferers (1 in 2 AIDS sufferers in Africa are cared for by offices of the Catholic Church, isn't that astounding?) and teaching moral responsibility and respect for the self and others to people is the best policy. Handing out condoms isn't.
circushead 11 months ago
@circushead "I think my Church is correct in their condom stance."
Then you are complicit in millions of preventable deaths.
soulinite 11 months ago
@soulinite No, I'm not. Because my Church teaches abstinence and monogamy. If every followed my Church's teaching on these matters, there would not be an AIDS crisis. Your thinking is logically impaired.
circushead 11 months ago
@circushead "your thinking is logically impaired"
More so then thinking a bunch of celibate old virgins should be giving anybody advice on sex?
Meanwhile in the real world condoms reduce the spread of HIV while preaching an unrealistic ideal(that even the clergy of the catholic church can't live up to) and promoting ignorance about human sexuality allows plagues like AIDS to flourish.
soulinite 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@soulinite
"Meanwhile in the real world condoms reduce the spread of HIV "
Actually, no, they don't. My Church insists on treating people like people, not like beasts. That must be why it's the fastest growing religion in Africa.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead You don't think condoms reduce the spread of HIV? On what evidence to you base this?
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite Any practice that endorses promiscuity will lead to more promiscuity, often without the latex devices, and AIDS will continue to spread. This is why condom strategies are all failures.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead If condom strategies are "all failures" then how do you explain the stats that prove good sex ed and access to condoms curb the spread of HIV?
I think it's sad that your church would rather cling to dogma then save lives.
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite If my Church were only interested in dogma, they wouldn't have bothered to establish the agencies and infrastructure that cares for fully one in two of the AIDS sufferers on the African continent, would they? They'd just stay in a remote place, talking about it. Like, say, YOU do.
circushead 10 months ago
In what way is empowering people to protect themselves "treating them like beasts"?
Are you sure your church isn't treating you like an animal(say a sheep)? The Lord is your Shepard after all right?
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite Yes, Jesus is the Good Shepherd and I am in His flock. Proud to say it. You treat people like beasts when you conclude that they are unable to control their urges and treat themselves with respect, and you carpet bomb them with latex devices. My Church doesn't do that. It disturbs you.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead If you respect some one you give them the information they need to protect themselves.
Do you see any irony at all in raging against people being treated like "beasts" while claiming everyone should be a sheep in your flock?
In reality condoms reduce the spread of AIDS while clinging to unrealistic ideals lets people die.
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite Do you see any irony in shedding your crocodile tears for sexually abused children when you're an enthusiastic cheerleader for the process of vacuuming children under nine months old from their very wombs?
Condoms do not reduced the spread of AIDS. They maintain promiscuity. And promiscuity spreads AIDS and other problems.
You don't understand, either willfully or naively, the nature of what it is to be in the flock of the Good Shepherd. Look into it. And leave babies alone.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead In the real world condoms reduce the spread of AIDS while your church spreading ignorance leads to more death.
You might want to check out the studies that compare STD rates among people who've been given comprehensive sex education to people who only get "abstinence only"?
Again, why should we listen to anything a group of doddering old virgins have to say about sex?
That's like getting tanning advice from a mole person.
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite
"Again, why should we listen to anything a group of doddering old virgins have to say about sex?"
I'm almost certain you'd have no objection if they happened to be celibate spiritual advisors of another faith.
But, to extend your analogy, how many advocates for the homeless are actually homeless, shit-for-brains? Furthermore, are you African? Doubt it. So why should they listen to you?
But, back to the issue. Why do you find murder acceptable in select cases?
circushead 10 months ago
I don't consider celibacy to be a natural or realistic way to live. If you chase nature out the front door it's going to sneak in a window(and maybe rape your kids). Celibate old men who haven't left Vatican city in many decades and who live at variance with their own biology give bad advice about sex(like telling people condoms cause AIDS).
I think everyone should have access to birth control and comprehensive sex ed so that they can make informed choices about their own sexuality.
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite
"I don't consider celibacy to be a natural or realistic way to live."
Uh huh. And you consider unborn children fair game for murder if they're inconvenient. Your judgment is probably impaired in a lot of other ways as well.
circushead 10 months ago
@soulinite You're really into talking about child rape, aren't you. I'd think that meditating on child slaughter would be enough for you, but I guess I'd be wrong.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead "Condoms do not reduced the spread of AID"
How did you become a reality denalist exactly?
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite I've always denied bullshit. Must be genetic or something. Do you deny that abstinence and monogamy stems the spread of AIDS and other diseases? Because that's what my Church teaches.
circushead 10 months ago
@soulinite How long have you believed that Africans are incapable of love, self-control and mutual respect that is counseled by the Catholic Church as the road to spiritual and physical health and happiness for all people? I guess what I'm really asking, Condom Man, is this: have you always been such a virulent racist?
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead How does wanting all people to have access to birth control and comprehensive sex education so that they can make an informed choice about their own sexuality make me a racist?
I guess if you live in a world were old virgins are authorities on sex and that condoms cause AIDS that make sense.
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite You're a racist because you apparently think it impossible that Africans can ever be expected to control their own urges. Africans are black. Therefore, you're a racist.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead African's come in many different colours and what part of "I think every human on the planet should be given access to birth control and comprehensive sex ed so they can be empowered to maker their own informed choices about their sexuality" do you not understand?
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite Hi racist. How are you today? Why do you think Africans are intemperate beasts. Don't you know that they're creatures created by God, equal in all ways to us.
circushead 10 months ago
@circushead How does wanting everyone on earth to have access to birth control and comprehensive sex ed make me a racist? Why are you against giving people the information they need to protect themselves and their community?
If your church valued life instead of dogma and control of it's followers personally lives' there would be free condoms next the holy water.
soulinite 10 months ago
@circushead Remember that all the children your church has raped are undebatable alive. As are the women who die from unsafe abortion.
Do you not see that all this dogma is just a transparent ploy to give your church control over it's followers sexuality? Instead of treating people like children and trying to frighten them into your way of thinking why not empower them with the information that would allow them to make their own informed choices.
soulinite 10 months ago
@soulinite The unborn children who you gleefully counsel as fair game for murder are also undeniably alive. I asked you, if life doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin. You've offered no answer, therefore you must agree with me that life does begin at conception, but fuck those little kids. Kill 'em if they can't fight back. Therefore, I question your 'compassion' for child victims of any age.
circushead 10 months ago
Why don't you take all this energy you are using to try to take away women's rights and put that towards trying to reform your church so that its clergy rapes fewer children?
soulinite 11 months ago
@soulinite There's no such thing as a small murder, you Catholic-hating creep.
circushead 11 months ago
@circushead I don't hate Catholics. I hate Rome's regressive policies that cause needles suffering and death. Like the ones that cause children to be raped(and then to have those rapes covered up to protect the church's reputation).
It's sort of like the "love the sinner hate the sin" thing you guys use when you say homophobic things. Except of coarse that I'm genuine about it.
soulinite 10 months ago