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

Does anyone else find it really amusing that Psy-4, who is arguably one of the least sexism-savvy posters on this forum (to put it kindly) is admonishing another belief system for being sexist? Psy-4, who doesn't believe that gender based workplace discrimination against women exists, and thinks that robot sex toys are preferable to the companionship of a real woman?

Sorry, kid. If you're trying to use yourself as an example of how much better for women Atheism is than mean ol' Christianity, ur doin' it wrong.

Bamshalam wrote:

Does anyone else find it really amusing that Psy-4, who is arguably one of the least sexism-savvy posters on this forum (to put it kindly) is admonishing another belief system for being sexist? Psy-4, who doesn't believe that gender based workplace discrimination against women exists,

Girl I am lolling forever.

Quote :

and thinks that robot sex toys are preferable to the companionship of a real woman?

WAIT WHAT

Cyberwulf wrote:

Quote :

and thinks that robot sex toys are preferable to the companionship of a real woman?

WAIT WHAT

AAA HOW DO YOU NOT REMEMBER THAT. It was in the post about the invention of the first sex robot (wherever it is, my WGW search-fu is weak), where mostly everyone thought it was pathetic to fuck one and he was all "but it won't like, talk to me like those dumb real women do."

HILAR.

[EDIT: LOLOLOL FOUND IT]
[EDIT 2: Ok, so he didn't actually say that, but it was still ridiculous that he was trying to get people to give reasons as to why a real woman would be preferable to a janky-looking sex robot.]

Bamshalam wrote:

Psy-4, who doesn't believe that gender based workplace discrimination against women exists,

I'm just waiting for people to look at my address and see that I live in the most leftarded city of a very leftarded country, and realise that not everyone lives in the U.S. of A-hole. HTH.

Bamshalam wrote:

Ok, so he didn't actually say that,

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

So noted.

Psy-4 wrote:

Bamshalam wrote:

Psy-4, who doesn't believe that gender based workplace discrimination against women exists,

I'm just waiting for people to look at my address and see that I live in the most leftarded city of a very leftarded country, and realise that not everyone lives in the U.S. of A-hole. HTH.

That would be all well and good if you didn't try to actively argue that gender-based discrimination didn't exist in the US.

Bamshalam wrote:

Psy-4 wrote:

Bamshalam wrote:

Psy-4, who doesn't believe that gender based workplace discrimination against women exists,

I'm just waiting for people to look at my address and see that I live in the most leftarded city of a very leftarded country, and realise that not everyone lives in the U.S. of A-hole. HTH.

That would be all well and good if you didn't try to actively argue that gender-based discrimination didn't exist in the US.

BUT BAM IN HIS CITY IT'S LEGAL FOR WOMEN TO GO TOPLESS

Well I think it's safe to say Psy doesn't really get out much, and we all know there are no women on the internet...

Nihilist wrote:

You think peoples' beliefs are based on where they live, too?

You think people's beliefs aren't heavily influenced by where they live?

Bamshalam wrote:

Wow. Psy-4 was right. People really do put words in his mouth.

Nihilist wrote:

I believe that either a person's beliefs, personality, and identity are either completely homogenized based on where you live, or there is absolutely no correlation of any kind at all to the kind of people you grow up around and the kind of person you grow up to be. One or the other. There cannot be any middle ground possibilities whatsoever.

hurf durf

Nihilist wrote:

Whatever man, keep it in the here and now. Because some people, as much as you don't want to believe it, grow up and change their opinions on things. Take it as you will, keep posturing, it's kind of hilarious watching you.

But bamshalam gets a pass, right?

Hmm, what? Ah, yes, this thread. Yeah, sure, whatever.

Whatchoo talkin bout Nih
people don't grow up
we are all born the way we will be for the rest of our lives and therefore all the perfect beings on this here forum were just naturally born that way

Nihilist wrote:

I've been totally shown to be a fool by denying what is self evident, so let me throw some patronizing ad hom before anyone notices how completely stupid and obviously wrong my opinion is.

hurf durf

In case you feel like having a real conversation,

Quote :

Because some people, as much as you don't want to
believe it, grow up and change their opinions on things.

A person's opinion changes based on the experiences and conversations they have with people they interact with. And the people you know changes based on where you live. So, thanks for proving my point. You're terrible at following things to their logical conclusion, aren't you?

They also can change based on the media. internet sites/forums and discussion with the people in them, and quite simple rejection of conventions. For some things it happens quite on the persons own. The people you know also change based on area in which you live of afore-mentioned place, if you want to get technical. ALSO, the people you interact with change their opinions based on all of the above.

My point here is that whether or not you think I'm just being overly technical, you do not always grow up into the people you are "around" due to location.

Jesus. wrote:

They also can change based on the media. internet sites/forums and discussion with the people in them, and quite simple rejection of conventions. For some things it happens quite on the persons own. The people you know also change based on area in which you live of afore-mentioned place, if you want to get technical. ALSO, the people you interact with change their opinions based on all of the above.

My point here is that whether or not you think I'm just being overly technical, you do not always grow up into the people you are "around" due to location.

Actually, anyone who isolates themselves to a degree that their community doesn't influence them, or influences them to a far lesser degree than mass media, is probably living a mentally unhealthy lifestyle. There've been studies on this, exploring the root causes behind things like old retirees cooped up with nothing but the cat and the daily news to keep them company for long periods developing a "mean world syndrome."

Psy-4 wrote:

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)

And yet, you seem incapable of actually answering my request for you to elucidate as to what you meant in your previous posts. Or, at least, you've shown yourself incapable so far. Don't worry, dearest. I can wait.

Psy-4 wrote:

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.

I was offering my interpretation of what you said, and asking for confirmation on whether that was what you really meant. I'm sure it must have been terribly traumatic for you, though, having someone question your opinions in a rational manner.

Psy-4 wrote:

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.

Actually, what it's called is 'hypocrisy'. And I don't think anyone here's missing the fact that you're attempting to cover your mistake by claiming that it was intentional. But nice try, really.

Psy-4 wrote:

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.

But the burning question is what that has to do with anything.

Penguin wrote:

Jesus. wrote:

They also can change based on the media. internet sites/forums and discussion with the people in them, and quite simple rejection of conventions. For some things it happens quite on the persons own. The people you know also change based on area in which you live of afore-mentioned place, if you want to get technical. ALSO, the people you interact with change their opinions based on all of the above.

My point here is that whether or not you think I'm just being overly technical, you do not always grow up into the people you are "around" due to location.

Actually, anyone who isolates themselves to a degree that their community doesn't influence them, or influences them to a far lesser degree than mass media, is probably living a mentally unhealthy lifestyle. There've been studies on this, exploring the root causes behind things like old retirees cooped up with nothing but the cat and the daily news to keep them company for long periods developing a "mean world syndrome."

I wasn't talking about only getting viewpoints from the media. I was under the impression that we were talking about becoming the person that is commonly seen in the particular community you live in. I'm saying that there are factors that can and sometimes do equal not growing up to be that person, including simply finding other communities, people that grew up in different communities influencing you, as well as internet communities and media.

I like how we all agree that the Catholic Church's decision is A Bad Thing but need to wank so much that we have commenced meta-wank.

Well, if it helps, I'm completely on board with the whole outrage over "how could they possibly handle this any worse" when it comes to molestation, but never understood how people who aren't even members of the church can get upset about which gender gets to wear which ridiculous outfit on Sunday. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Penguin wrote:

Well, if it helps, I'm completely on board with the whole outrage over "how could they possibly handle this any worse" when it comes to molestation, but never understood how people who aren't even members of the church can get upset about which gender gets to wear which ridiculous outfit on Sunday. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Because that means I can't bring it down from the inside

Seriously, though, what pisses me off is that the Vatican's line can be interpreted one of two ways:
1. Giving women equal standing is absolutely terrible, it's something that is as terrible and wrong as raping kids.
2. Raping kids isn't really that bad, just like women's equality isn't.

Either of these lines of thinking is downright dangerous when it comes from such an influential organisation.

TheHermit wrote:

WORRY NOT, MY SWEET PSY-4, FOR I AM HERE TO RECSUE YOU

We really need a white knight icon, stat.

Anyway, since you've had the habit lately of empty quoting what I say without actually addressing any of it, I ask you: where, specifically, was I putting words in Psy-4's mouth? The part where I actively admitted to doing so, or the part where I told him his being Canadian has fuckshit to do with his telling American (and British) women that American (and British) workplace discrimination against women isn't as bad as we think it is?

Psy-4 wrote:

Bamshalam wrote:

Ok, so he didn't actually say that,

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

So noted.

I loll'd irl

Bamshalam wrote:

TheHermit wrote:

WORRY NOT, MY SWEET PSY-4, FOR I AM HERE TO RECSUE YOU

We really need a white knight icon, stat.

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

Psy-4's a big boy, he doesn't need my help. On the other hand, the stupidity was too much for me to not comment on.

Quote :

where, specifically, was I putting words in
Psy-4's mouth? The part where I actively admitted to doing so

This one, particularly that you only admitted to doing so when asked for proof of what he said. In context, it was very clear that what he said wasn't what you claimed. Ergo, you were putting words in his mouth. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this, and I don't understand why you think your moral outrage at being called out is justified.

TheHermit wrote:

Quote :

where, specifically, was I putting words in
Psy-4's mouth? The part where I actively admitted to doing so

This one, particularly that you only admitted to doing so when asked for proof of what he said.

Nope, I edited that comment way before anyone responded to it. Try again, babydoll.

Adagio wrote:

And yet, you seem incapable of actually answering my request for you to elucidate as to what you meant in your previous posts. Or, at least, you've shown yourself incapable so far. Don't worry, dearest. I can wait.

Aww, you're trying to imitate me, that's flattering. Alright, I'll humour you. Please state all the questions you feel I ignored. You might want to rephrase them, so that I am incapable of quoting my older posts in response.

Hmm, now why didn't I answer them in the first place? Can't remember now, but it's probably because the next thing to come out of you in response would be "How dare you!"

Adagio wrote:

I was offering my interpretation of what you said, and asking for confirmation on whether that was what you really meant. I'm sure it must have been terribly traumatic for you, though, having someone question your opinions in a rational manner.

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?

Adagio wrote:

Rather, expressing my disagreement with—and mild incredulity toward—your posts.

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

So which one is it? Are you expressing disagreement and are incredulous (at the phrase you made up), or are you offering an interpretation and asking for confirmation (you aren't)?

Adagio wrote:

Actually, what it's called is 'hypocrisy'. And I don't think anyone here's missing the fact that you're attempting to cover your mistake by claiming that it was intentional. But nice try, really.

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

Indeed. Also, you like to imply that I'm not condescending. Thank you.