What in hell happened to the group I came in on several years ago? They disagreed with my views on many things, but they weren't (except for erp) crazy. The Guy turned into a conduit for Fox tropes, then later Skipper turned into a caricature of a know-nothing Teahadist and now Bret goes over the edge.
Maybe there's something to the chemtrails conspiracy theory after all.
What in hell happened to the group I came in on several years ago? They disagreed with my views on many things, but they weren't (except for erp) crazy. The Guy turned into a conduit for Fox tropes, then later Skipper turned into a caricature of a know-nothing Teahadist and now Bret goes over the edge.
Maybe there's something to the chemtrails conspiracy theory after all.
The Catholic Church has also used that argument in child rape cases. Are you going to continue to hold your line?
The church spent more money on lawyers trying to discredit rape victims than it did on rehabilitating rape victims, so the 'big bucks' argument doesn't make sense.
You keep referring to Christian countries. What brand of Christianity do these countries labor under?
The Catholic Church has also used that argument in child rape cases. Are you going to continue to hold your line?
I'm calling shenanigans. Point out to me one instance, just one, where the Church has used "considered teachings" as a justification for child rape, or a defense against rape cases.
You keep referring to Christian countries.
Huh? Wot?
I've asked before, although fat lot of good it did me. DO NOT TELL ME WHAT I'VE SAID, PROVIDE THE DIRECT QUOTE.
'In a surprising move, the diocese responded with a novel argument: Its attorneys asserted that even being forced to defend itself in court would be a violation of the church’s “religious freedom.”
“[If] the diocese is required to go through a trial,” it would “irrevocably” deny the diocese’s religious protections, the church’s attorneys argued.
Several. But you first. You keep referring to Christian countries. I know of none, although there was one as recently as 75 years ago. What Christian countries are you referring to?
That was the one you specifically provided: it was a load of hooey, and your defense of it preposterous.
Calling someone a liar, facist, or racist is serious stuff. Just like, it seems, nearly all progressives, you sling those accusations around like monkeys throw poo.
And, when pushed, you come up with some quibble like "these weren't the only examples". A little bit of internet searching showed, with regard to Joni Ernst, it is the only one you have mentioned.
Here's a hypothetical. And I emphasize, for google search engines the world over, it is purely, merely, a hypo, having no basis in reality whatsoever.
Harry, you have facial hair that really helps you look something like Santa Claus.
Clearly, you do that to attract children.
Therefore, you are a pedophile.
Pretty nasty stuff, huh?
Of course, if I was to say that seriously, to make that evidence-free accusation, I would be a liar.
On no more evidence than that -- i.e., what you had -- Progressives routinely resort to disgusting accusations in order to demonize those who don't spout progressive catechisms. Dr Zoom, Marcotte, well, pretty much all of Jezebel, Crooked Timber, name it.
Of course, I could be entirely mistaken here. Maybe progressive ideas are so important that integrity is trivial in comparison.
You didn't like the evidence about Ernst. That doesn't mean it wasn't evidence.
I meant those weren't the only times you cited "Christians countries." There aren't any Christian countries today (although Tonga, Uganda and perhaps some others are on the brink).
So I don't know why you keep bringing up "Christian countries." I do know that your claim that I cannot cite past practices is, shall we say, unChristian.
Christians make a big deal out of the timelessness of their cult. The Protestants say, 'Jesus Christ, the same yesterday today and tomorrow' and the Catholics say 'one holy Catholic and apostolic.'
So you cannot just blow off millions of murders by saying, that was then. In Christianity, there is no 'then.' It is all now.
You didn't like the evidence about Ernst. That doesn't mean it wasn't evidence.
There was absolutely no evidence. None. You can't cite any, because there isn't any. (I'm standing by to be corrected, but not in any kind of suspense.) You provided a link to some people who have exactly the same evidence you do: none. That doesn't even reach the sneering standards of gossip.
There aren't any Christian countries today ...
Depending upon the definition, there certainly are. The Philippines are Christian. Mexico is. In fact, most of Latin America is decidedly Christian. All of the West was avowedly Christian sufficiently recently as to still qualify as Christian countries.
Certainly the US does -- Phil Robertson is Christian, and far more popular than any progressive.
So you cannot just blow off millions of murders by saying, that was then.
Surely you can't have misapprehended the readily apparent that badly, nor ignore the fact that, no matter how many there were, that WAS then.
If your "timelessness" meant what you say it does, Christians would still be murdering each other in the name of their sects.
Since there is no ethnic difference between Serbs and Croats -- same language, ancestry and customs-- the adoption of the trope 'ethnic cleansing' id bizarre. The only difference between the two groups is religion.
You're right. U.S. public schools are also enemies of democracy.
ReplyDeleteWhat in hell happened to the group I came in on several years ago? They disagreed with my views on many things, but they weren't (except for erp) crazy. The Guy turned into a conduit for Fox tropes, then later Skipper turned into a caricature of a know-nothing Teahadist and now Bret goes over the edge.
ReplyDeleteMaybe there's something to the chemtrails conspiracy theory after all.
What in hell happened to the group I came in on several years ago? They disagreed with my views on many things, but they weren't (except for erp) crazy. The Guy turned into a conduit for Fox tropes, then later Skipper turned into a caricature of a know-nothing Teahadist and now Bret goes over the edge.
ReplyDeleteMaybe there's something to the chemtrails conspiracy theory after all.
... then later Skipper turned into a caricature of a know-nothing Teahadist and now Bret goes over the edge.
ReplyDeleteLook in the mirror -- in that Ernst thread you issued more intellectual buffoonery than I have ever seen collected into one place.
And when challenged, the goal posts move so fast they end up in the Inquisition.
To which I need to add your link is self-defeating. One of the many arguments against Progressives is their hatred of independent civil society.
No one is forced to be a Catholic. No one is forced to work at at a Catholic school -- after all, the vast majority aren't.
But when this woman wants a Catholic school to cough up big bucks to against considered Catholic morality, well then too bad for Catholics.
Progressive double-think in action: totalitarianism is democracy.
The Catholic Church has also used that argument in child rape cases. Are you going to continue to hold your line?
ReplyDeleteThe church spent more money on lawyers trying to discredit rape victims than it did on rehabilitating rape victims, so the 'big bucks' argument doesn't make sense.
You keep referring to Christian countries. What brand of Christianity do these countries labor under?
The Catholic Church has also used that argument in child rape cases. Are you going to continue to hold your line?
ReplyDeleteI'm calling shenanigans. Point out to me one instance, just one, where the Church has used "considered teachings" as a justification for child rape, or a defense against rape cases.
You keep referring to Christian countries.
Huh? Wot?
I've asked before, although fat lot of good it did me. DO NOT TELL ME WHAT I'VE SAID, PROVIDE THE DIRECT QUOTE.
Did I type it loudly enough that time?
This the anti-democratic part:
ReplyDelete'In a surprising move, the diocese responded with a novel argument: Its attorneys asserted that even being forced to defend itself in court would be a violation of the church’s “religious freedom.”
“[If] the diocese is required to go through a trial,” it would “irrevocably” deny the diocese’s religious protections, the church’s attorneys argued.
There is a misstatement above. It was not surprising. The church used the same argument in the child-rape cases
ReplyDelete'Christian countries do not burn apostates.'
ReplyDelete'What do Christian countries do to apostates?'
That's your words
'Christian countries do not burn apostates.'
ReplyDelete'What do Christian countries do to apostates?'
Thank you ever so much. How about making it a habit?
And, since it is a really good habit, how about linking to "'In a surprising move ...'"
(Oh, and a bit of a pro-tip here: constitutional law and Catholic moral teachings are wildly different concepts.)
You keep referring to Christian countries. What brand of Christianity do these countries labor under?
I trust you have a point here.
BTW, re: plastic bread bags, you called Ernst a liar. Please detail the evidence for that assertion.
ReplyDelete'I trust you have a point here.'
ReplyDeleteSeveral. But you first. You keep referring to Christian countries. I know of none, although there was one as recently as 75 years ago. What Christian countries are you referring to?
You keep referring to Christian countries.
ReplyDeleteI keep referring to them, what, once, twice?
BTW, re: plastic bread bags, you called Ernst a liar. Please detail the evidence for that assertion.
ReplyDeleteThe chorus of crickets is testimony to your libel.
Those weren't the only examples. You kept coming back to the idea as if it was important to you. Dunno why. Your move.
ReplyDeleteThat was the one you specifically provided: it was a load of hooey, and your defense of it preposterous.
ReplyDeleteCalling someone a liar, facist, or racist is serious stuff. Just like, it seems, nearly all progressives, you sling those accusations around like monkeys throw poo.
And, when pushed, you come up with some quibble like "these weren't the only examples". A little bit of internet searching showed, with regard to Joni Ernst, it is the only one you have mentioned.
Here's a hypothetical. And I emphasize, for google search engines the world over, it is purely, merely, a hypo, having no basis in reality whatsoever.
Harry, you have facial hair that really helps you look something like Santa Claus.
Clearly, you do that to attract children.
Therefore, you are a pedophile.
Pretty nasty stuff, huh?
Of course, if I was to say that seriously, to make that evidence-free accusation, I would be a liar.
On no more evidence than that -- i.e., what you had -- Progressives routinely resort to disgusting accusations in order to demonize those who don't spout progressive catechisms. Dr Zoom, Marcotte, well, pretty much all of Jezebel, Crooked Timber, name it.
Of course, I could be entirely mistaken here. Maybe progressive ideas are so important that integrity is trivial in comparison.
You didn't like the evidence about Ernst. That doesn't mean it wasn't evidence.
ReplyDeleteI meant those weren't the only times you cited "Christians countries." There aren't any Christian countries today (although Tonga, Uganda and perhaps some others are on the brink).
So I don't know why you keep bringing up "Christian countries." I do know that your claim that I cannot cite past practices is, shall we say, unChristian.
Christians make a big deal out of the timelessness of their cult. The Protestants say, 'Jesus Christ, the same yesterday today and tomorrow' and the Catholics say 'one holy Catholic and apostolic.'
So you cannot just blow off millions of murders by saying, that was then. In Christianity, there is no 'then.' It is all now.
You didn't like the evidence about Ernst. That doesn't mean it wasn't evidence.
ReplyDeleteThere was absolutely no evidence. None. You can't cite any, because there isn't any. (I'm standing by to be corrected, but not in any kind of suspense.) You provided a link to some people who have exactly the same evidence you do: none. That doesn't even reach the sneering standards of gossip.
There aren't any Christian countries today ...
Depending upon the definition, there certainly are. The Philippines are Christian. Mexico is. In fact, most of Latin America is decidedly Christian. All of the West was avowedly Christian sufficiently recently as to still qualify as Christian countries.
Certainly the US does -- Phil Robertson is Christian, and far more popular than any progressive.
So you cannot just blow off millions of murders by saying, that was then.
Surely you can't have misapprehended the readily apparent that badly, nor ignore the fact that, no matter how many there were, that WAS then.
If your "timelessness" meant what you say it does, Christians would still be murdering each other in the name of their sects.
They haven't for hundreds of years.
That is something you can't just blow off.
'They haven't for hundreds of years.'
ReplyDeleteNot true. It hasn't been even 25 years.
Not true. It hasn't been even 25 years.
ReplyDeleteProve it.
Standing by.
ReplyDeleteIt was on the front pages of all the newspapers nearly every day for years. If you would read newspapers, I wouldn't have to tell you.
ReplyDeleteSerbia, 1990s.
Christians there were murdering each other because of their sects?
ReplyDeleteI'd think that linkworthy.
Hmmm. Guess not. I wonder why.
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.com/books?id=I9p_m7oXQ00C&pg=PA123&dq=catholic+vs.+orthodox+in+serbia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1mYKVaj3KIPeoASviYHYCQ&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=catholic%20vs.%20orthodox%20in%20serbia&f=false
ReplyDeleteSince there is no ethnic difference between Serbs and Croats -- same language, ancestry and customs-- the adoption of the trope 'ethnic cleansing' id bizarre. The only difference between the two groups is religion.
Here's something a little closer to now than the 1880s.
ReplyDeleteThere were a lot of differences between the groups. For anyone, that is, who has more tools than just a hammer.
1990s.
ReplyDeleteEpic fail.
ReplyDeleteYou asserted that Christians were engaging in sectarian murder on the 1990s. Yet every source I could find neglected to mention that.
ReplyDeleteWhy?
That is a good question. There was a lot of ignoring of elephants in rooms, combined with profound ignorance of history.
ReplyDeleteBut since Catholics murdered Orthodox in 1941-44, and Orthodox murdered Catholics in revenge in the '90s, it isn't that hard to figure out.
The reason no source mentioned that is because you have only one tool -- a hammer, and every problem is religious.
ReplyDeleteAll the other sources are far more sophisticated than you, and clearly found sectarian explanations neither sufficient, nor necessary.