Ordaining female priests is as bad as child abuse, says Vatican

The only part about this I don't understand is as follows:

The Catholic Church is massively rich. They have a very receptive audience in the media. They employ thousands, if not millions, and have been around for more than a millennium.

So why are they goddamn bad at public relations?

TheHermit wrote:

The only part about this I don't understand is as follows:

The Catholic Church is massively rich. They have a very receptive audience in the media. They employ thousands, if not millions, and have been around for more than a millennium.

So why are they goddamn bad at public relations?

Your organization would be pretty bad at PR too, if your leader looked like a Sith Lord.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

TheHermit wrote:

The only part about this I don't understand is as follows:

The Catholic Church is massively rich. They have a very receptive audience in the media. They employ thousands, if not millions, and have been around for more than a millennium.

So why are they goddamn bad at public relations?

Their own explanation involves a Freemasonic-Judaic-Communist plot. Personally I'd like to see how a Freemason, a Jew and a Communist can even be in the same room for 30 minutes without any bloodletting, let alone pull the strings of a plot encompassing several continents for tenths of years.

Adagio wrote:

I think I get that what you're trying to say is something along the lines of "you're really surprised at this, after all this time?"—but you're missing the point. It's not that we're surprised. It's that we're enraged

Blah blah blah, I'm not missing shit. That's precisely it. I don't want to see people bawwing and raging or whatever the fuck over anything that happened, and showing they are incapable of dealing with anything.

I want to see rational debate. So, ZoZo is doing it wrong, everyone else is doing it more or less right.

Psy-4 wrote:

I want to see rational debate.

Until people start to pwn you and then you throw your diaper at the wall and storm off.

The Unoriginal wrote:

Their own explanation involves a Freemasonic-Judaic-Communist plot. Personally I'd like to see how a Freemason, a Jew and a Communist can even be in the same room for 30 minutes without any bloodletting, let alone pull the strings of a plot encompassing several continents for tenths of years.

Well, a Freemason, a Jew and a Communist walk into a bar. The Freemason says "Ow!", the Jew says "Oy vey!" and the Communist says "In Soviet Russia, bar walk into you!"

Also, blah blah Bible is sexist yadda yadda God hates womyn fleeble of course Catholicism is sexist blingle.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Psy-4 wrote:

I want to see rational debate.

Until people start to pwn you and then you throw your diaper at the wall and storm off.

She's got you there.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Psy-4 wrote:

I want to see rational debate.

Until people start to pwn you and then you throw your diaper at the wall and storm off.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Seriously, I come to this forum for the drama and even I'm getting sick of you two.

TheHermit wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Psy-4 wrote:

I want to see rational debate.

Until people start to pwn you and then you throw your diaper at the wall and storm off.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Seriously, I come to this forum for the drama and even I'm getting sick of you two.

Well you have an ignore function.

TheHermit wrote:

Seriously, I come to this forum for the drama and even I'm getting sick of you two.

To stop the idiots from chiming in with idiotic sick burns (bro) aimed at me, you're going to have to pry the keyboards from their cold, dead hands.

Lexin wrote:

She's got you there.

Verandering wrote:

Well, he thinks internet forum users are their avatars, so... Not a far stretch.

Jesus. wrote:

Good thing we proved the patriarchy false, riiiiiiiiiight?

Why do girls keep chasing me?

TheHermit wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Psy-4 wrote:

I want to see rational debate.

Until people start to pwn you and then you throw your diaper at the wall and storm off.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Seriously, I come to this forum for the drama and even I'm getting sick of you two.

Don't try to spoil this, dude. These catfights are the only break we get from soapboxes and hobby horses.

Psy-4 wrote:

Adagio wrote:

I think I get that what you're trying to say is something along the lines of "you're really surprised at this, after all this time?"—but you're missing the point. It's not that we're surprised. It's that we're enraged

Blah blah blah, I'm not missing shit. That's precisely it. I don't want to see people bawwing and raging or whatever the fuck over anything that happened, and showing they are incapable of dealing with anything.

There's something about that paragraph that strikes me as deeply wrong. Let me see if I can separate the reasons.

First, there's the "anything that happened." So, you're saying that the Catholic Church put women being priests on a level with the molestation of little boys is nothing special or noteworthy. Really? Seriously?

Secondly, there's the heavy implication that this is something we must 'deal' with. No. No it's not. It's not something that people should deal with, it's something that should be fought against, because it represents some of the worst of religion. And part of fighting against it is—guess what?—being outraged. And voicing that outrage, voicing it as loudly as you possibly can.

I genuinely don't get how you can see this as "anything that happened" and not, at very best, a slight to fully half the Catholic population and, at worst, the continued oppression of fully half the Catholic population by the very institution that claims to have their best (spiritual) interests at heart. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Also, you didn't answer the first part of my post, really. By your reasoning, we shouldn't have gotten angry when—for example—the story came out about that southern judge or whatever it was that wouldn't grant marriage licenses to interracial couples. Y/N?

Adagio wrote:

And part of fighting against it is—guess what?—being outraged. And voicing that outrage, voicing it as loudly as you possibly can.

I'm not sure if constantly voicing your outrage in an echo chamber is quite so productive.

Adagio wrote:

First, there's the "anything that happened." So, you're saying that the Catholic Church put women being priests on a level with the molestation of little boys is nothing special or noteworthy. Really? Seriously?

Well, you're not the first one to make blatant assumptions about my position, demonise me, and generally put words in my mouth, so this doesn't surprise me in the least.

It might surprise you, however, but I am capable of considering something to be noteworthy without getting worked up over it. I know it upsets you that I refuse to roll around with you in inane emotional responses, platitudes, quotes of "this", high fives, and insincere confessions of "love".

Adagio wrote:

It's not something that people should deal with, it's something that should be fought against, because it represents some of the worst of religion. And part of fighting against it is—guess what?—being outraged. And voicing that outrage, voicing it as loudly as you possibly can.

gaijinguy wrote:

I'm not sure if constantly voicing your outrage in an echo chamber is quite so productive.

Where do you think you are? You are on a members-only forum on the internet. Who will hear you besides a chorus? What will your outrage accomplish? There is a time and place for everything, and if you think that yelling into a can, that is this forum, qualifies as "fighting against it", you are doing it wrong.

Adagio wrote:

I genuinely don't get how you can see this as "anything that happened" and not, at very best, a slight to fully half the Catholic population and, at worst, the continued oppression of fully half the Catholic population by the very institution that claims to have their best (spiritual) interests at heart.

Effin' this! I love you, bb, marry me. The church always seems to have it in for women for some reason, and that pisses me off.

Feel better?

Adagio wrote:

By your reasoning, we shouldn't have gotten angry when—for example—the story came out about that southern judge or whatever it was that wouldn't grant marriage licenses to interracial couples. Y/N?

You can get angry all you want, but if you think expressing it on this website accomplishes anything, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for only $9.95.

You could write letters, or protest if you're in the area.

Also, if you identify yourself as a christian while not being a heterosexual male, you amuse me.

Psy-4 wrote:

Also, if you identify yourself as a christian while not being a heterosexual male, you amuse me.

Um, "christian" is a very generic term that includes a lot of sects that are a lot more inclusive than the Roman Catholic Church ever will be.

[/pedantic mode]

Spotts1701 wrote:

Um, "christian" is a very generic term that includes a lot of sects that are a lot more inclusive than the Roman Catholic Church ever will be.

Das true. So, I specify it to be any sect that acknowledges the Old Testament as true.

Edit: upon further research, Timothy is in the New Testament, so I chalk up any inclusiveness to good, old-fashioned hypocrisy, and selective eyesight.

Verandering wrote:

Ver! How dare you not defer to the wisdom of a 21 year old atheist who can totes debate except we're all too immature to let him run the show.

ps start talking about something that interests him as this forum is here purely to cater to his interests

Psy-4 wrote:

Where do you think you are? You are on a members-only forum on the internet. Who will hear you besides a chorus? What will your outrage accomplish? There is a time and place for everything, and if you think that yelling into a can, that is this forum, qualifies as "fighting against it", you are doing it wrong.

This board can argue vehemently and at length about fonts. Fonts used in subtitles for movies. Even if this board is a chorus, it's, at best, an extremely dissonant one.
Secondly, one could argue that this board is about, like, finding an outlet for rage. Whether that rage is spurned on by bad fanfiction or bad Vactican practises should be quite besides the point. You're the only one who made the assumption that outrage leads to the need to fight the machine.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Psy-4 wrote:

Where do you think you are? You are on a members-only forum on the internet. Who will hear you besides a chorus? What will your outrage accomplish? There is a time and place for everything, and if you think that yelling into a can, that is this forum, qualifies as "fighting against it", you are doing it wrong.

This board can argue vehemently and at length about fonts. Fonts used in subtitles for movies. Even if this board is a chorus, it's, at best, an extremely dissonant one.
Secondly, one could argue that this board is about, like, finding an outlet for rage. Whether that rage is spurned on by bad fanfiction or bad Vactican practises should be quite besides the point. You're the only one who made the assumption that outrage leads to the need to fight the machine.

I don't quite buy that, as some of the people now going after Psy are the same ones who'll pitch a fit at people for replying to threads about child rapists and murderers with generic replies about hoping they get raped and/or murdered in prison. And this board has about a handful of posters who aren't in lockstep with everyone else on most political issues (in other words, aren't in tune with the "hive vagina" some have taken to mentioning). The rest of the time, it's usually a select few tearing into people who are mostly on their side over trivial details.

But careless venting is only sanctioned for certain topics.

Psy-4 wrote:

Adagio wrote:

First, there's the "anything that happened." So, you're saying that the Catholic Church put women being priests on a level with the molestation of little boys is nothing special or noteworthy. Really? Seriously?

Well, you're not the first one to make blatant assumptions about my position, demonise me, and generally put words in my mouth, so this doesn't surprise me in the least.

You said: "I don't want to see people bawwing and raging or whatever the fuck over anything that happened." In a thread expressing anger at the Vatican church equating women being ordained with pedophilia. Please tell me how that's not heavily implying that the aforementioned topic is 'anything that happened'.

Also, it would be nice to be able to debate without you quickly jumping on the victim bandwagon. Demonising you? Hardly. Rather, expressing my disagreement with—and mild incredulity toward—your posts.

Psy-4 wrote:

It might surprise you, however, but I am capable of considering something to be noteworthy without getting worked up over it. I know it upsets you that I refuse to roll around with you in inane emotional responses, platitudes, quotes of "this", high fives, and insincere confessions of "love".

Nothing to say here, I just find it funny that you accuse me of making assumptions about you and then turn right around, in the very next paragraph, and do exactly the same yourself.

Hee.

Psy-4 wrote:

Where do you think you are? You are on a members-only forum on the internet. Who will hear you besides a chorus? What will your outrage accomplish? There is a time and place for everything, and if you think that yelling into a can, that is this forum, qualifies as "fighting against it", you are doing it wrong.

Okay, this I will grant you. Posting on a members-only forum is not exactly taking up arms against a sea of blah blah blah. But that's not precisely what I was going for. What I was going for was refuting your comment about 'dealing'. As in, this is not a problem with us, and it is not something we have to learn to 'deal' with.

Psy-4 wrote:

Adagio wrote:

I genuinely don't get how you can see this as "anything that happened" and not, at very best, a slight to fully half the Catholic population and, at worst, the continued oppression of fully half the Catholic population by the very institution that claims to have their best (spiritual) interests at heart.

Effin' this! I love you, bb, marry me. The church always seems to have it in for women for some reason, and that pisses me off.

Feel better?

Ah, so sorry. I seem to recall typing something along the lines of 'perhaps you could explain your views on this topic'. Obviously I must have mistakenly typed an invitation to be as condescending as you like without ever actually explaining your previous posts. How strange.

Psy-4 wrote:

Adagio wrote:

By your reasoning, we shouldn't have gotten angry when—for example—the story came out about that southern judge or whatever it was that wouldn't grant marriage licenses to interracial couples. Y/N?

You can get angry all you want, but if you think expressing it on this website accomplishes anything, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for only $9.95.

You could write letters, or protest if you're in the area.

Also, if you identify yourself as a christian while not being a heterosexual male, you amuse me.

1. Yes, darling, I love it when you talk down to me about my anger without answering my questions. By all means, continue.

2. By 'the area', you mean... Roma? Italia? If so, no. Not in the area.

3. I don't identify myself as christian, incidentally. But the burning question is what that has to do with anything.

I think it's time for the church to make yet another totally insincere apology that they don't mean and have no intention of upholding in any manner.

Adagio wrote:

Psy-4 wrote:

Adagio wrote:

First, there's the "anything that happened." So, you're saying that the Catholic Church put women being priests on a level with the molestation of little boys is nothing special or noteworthy. Really? Seriously?

Well, you're not the first one to make blatant assumptions about my position, demonise me, and generally put words in my mouth, so this doesn't surprise me in the least.

You said: "I don't want to see people bawwing and raging or whatever the fuck over anything that happened." In a thread expressing anger at the Vatican church equating women being ordained with pedophilia. Please tell me how that's not heavily implying that the aforementioned topic is 'anything that happened'.

You don't understand, Adagio. When you debate with Psy-4, under no circumstances are you to refer to any previous statements he's made in the debate. Neither are you to point out where he's said something that's ridiculous. Doing so is "putting words in his mouth" and "demonising" him.

Quote :

Psy-4 wrote:

It might surprise you, however, but I am capable of considering something to be noteworthy without getting worked up over it. I know it upsets you that I refuse to roll around with you in inane emotional responses, platitudes, quotes of "this", high fives, and insincere confessions of "love".

Nothing to say here, I just find it funny that you accuse me of making assumptions about you and then turn right around, in the very next paragraph, and do exactly the same yourself.

Now, see, he's allowed to do that because it's his debate and his rules.

Adagio wrote:

1. Yes, darling, I love it when you talk down to me about my anger without answering my questions. By all means, continue.

K done. Be advised that the amount of condescension in my posts is directly proportional to how much of an idiot I think you are.

Adagio wrote:

You said: "I don't want to see people bawwing and raging or whatever the fuck over anything that happened." In a thread expressing anger at the Vatican church equating women being ordained with pedophilia. Please tell me how that's not heavily implying that the aforementioned topic is 'anything that happened'.

Well, it certainly is a thing, and it certainly has happened, so I'm not sure what's your beef is with the phrase 'anything that happened'. Also, never ass-u-me what I imply. (PROTIP: half the time, I don't imply anything at all)

Adagio wrote:

Also, it would be nice to be able to debate without you quickly jumping on the victim bandwagon. Demonising you? Hardly. Rather, expressing my disagreement with—and mild incredulity toward—your posts.

While you were not doing that, you were definitely putting words in my mouth.

Adagio wrote:

Nothing to say here, I just find it funny that you accuse me of making assumptions about you and then turn right around, in the very next paragraph, and do exactly the same yourself.

It's called patronizing, dear. But it's okay, I don't expect you to get it.

Adagio wrote:

But that's not precisely what I was going for. What I was going for was refuting your comment about 'dealing'. As in, this is not a problem with us, and it is not something we have to learn to 'deal' with.

It is actually. You won't be able to change the church's stance, and get, at most, a shitty apology. No one wants to see your impotent rage.

Adagio wrote:

3. I don't identify myself as christian, incidentally. But the burning question is what that has to do with anything.

To clarify, I am referring to anyone and everyone, not just you.