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

Psy-4 wrote:

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.

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?

^ That was it. In other words, re: your comment about "people bawwing about anything that happened", I was asking you if you truly thought that the Catholic Church equating ordaining women as priests with child molestation was 'just anything', and not worthy of attention, rather that something that should in fact elicit an outraged response.

If you'll look closely, you've danced around the question via accusing me of putting words in your mouth (it's a subtle difference between that an interpretation of what you said, so it's understandable if you didn't get it), tried your hand at condescension, etc.—but never actually answered the question.

You've quoted it, so obviously you know it's there, and yet here I wait still.

(Also, imitating you? Hee. The instant I feel like starting to respond with macros and assumptions rather than rationality, rest assured you will be my one and only guiding star.)

Psy-4 wrote:

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!"

You cannot know that unless you answer the question. Honestly, don't you think it's a bit silly to defend your lack of discussion by claiming "well you'd only get angry at me!" In this discussion, only one of us has been making assumptions about the other, angel.

Psy-4 wrote:

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.

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)?

All.

The second quote of mine is me exposing my interpretation of what you said. The "Really? Seriously?" is simultaneously a request for confirmation or denial, and an indication that I disagree with (my perception of) your opinion. The use of italics what was made it incredulous.

I didn't think it was that hard to understand, but apparently I was mistaken.

Psy-4 wrote:

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

Um. No?

Rather the opposite, in fact. I do find it kinda funny, though, I'll admit; hence my invitation to continue.

Adagio wrote:

I was asking you if you truly thought that the Catholic Church equating ordaining women as priests with child molestation was 'just anything', and not worthy of attention

It is [worthy of attention].

Adagio wrote:

rather that something that should in fact elicit an outraged response.

It's not. HTH.

Adagio wrote:

All.

The second quote of mine is me exposing my interpretation of what you said. The "Really? Seriously?" is simultaneously a request for confirmation or denial, and an indication that I disagree with (my perception of) your opinion. The use of italics what was made it incredulous.

I didn't think it was that hard to understand, but apparently I was mistaken.

It's a bit too obvious that it was incredulity at first, and now you are backtracking with a cover of 'rationality' (bonus points for imitating me and acting condescending about how obvious it is).

(I anticipate my own use of the word 'obvious' and place a trap card "Backed by Evidence" face down on the field)

Who juxtaposes two incredibly similar in meaning phrases not for the purpose of stress, but for them to have two completely different meanings? You, apparently.

Who makes no effort to establish that what they said is a subjective interpretation instead of an assertion? Clearly you.

Here's a better alternative, that, in fact, represents all of what you are claiming to were trying to say, and could have avoided all of this.

Bizarro Adagio wrote:

First, there's the "anything that happened." Are you saying that the Catholic Church putting women being priests on a level with the molestation of little boys is nothing special or noteworthy? Could you clarify, because otherwise, if that's the case... wow, that's fucked up.

Fucking words, how do they work?

Psy-4 wrote:

Adagio wrote:

I was asking you if you truly thought that the Catholic Church equating ordaining women as priests with child molestation was 'just anything', and not worthy of attention

It is [worthy of attention].

Adagio wrote:

rather that something that should in fact elicit an outraged response.

It's not. HTH.

Okay. That's all I wanted, really. I don't agree with you, but I'm satisfied with that answer. Ta.

(See? Wasn't so hard.)

Psy-4 wrote:

It's a bit too obvious that it was incredulity at first, and now you are backtracking with a cover of 'rationality' (bonus points for imitating me and acting condescending about how obvious it is).

(I anticipate my own use of the word 'obvious' and place a trap card "Backed by Evidence" face down on the field)

In all honesty, I think you're wanting me to be a little more confrontational than I actually am. (Insert comedic smiley to make absolutely clear that, hahah, no hard feelings, bro.) I do wish you'd stop making so many assumptions, though, seeing as I've yet to react in any of the ways you, ahem, predicted I would. It's getting rather silly. See below about the incredulity/disagreement/confirmation trinity.

If the above is the interpretation you want to take, then, well, can't stop you there. Rest assured it wasn't what I intended, though.

Psy-4 wrote:

Who juxtaposes two incredibly similar in meaning phrases not for the purpose of stress, but for them to have two completely different meanings? You, apparently.

No, they both mean the same thing. It's difficult to give a separate function to each of the two words; rather, they it's the way they go together that expresses all the meanings I was trying to give (i.e. incredulity, disagreement and a request for are-you-serious confirmation). The use of italics as well as the repetition of two words with similar meanings expresses incredulity and indicates my disapproval (in this case interchangeable with disagreement). As to asking for confirmation... when has the question "really?" meant anything else?

(Unless you took it as rhetorical, in which case I can see where the confusion lies.)

It's interesting that two words used in conjunction with each other (whilst remaining individual words in their own right) can add a meaning beyond what each of the two would have given separately, but that's a tangent.

Psy-4 wrote:

Who makes no effort to establish that what they said is a subjective interpretation instead of an assertion? Clearly you.

But... kiddo, one person's view of another's statement can only ever be a subjective evaluation. The only time it can contain an assertion is if it is a direct quote (as in, "you said blah"), in which case it'll almost certainly be followed by a subjective interpretation (as in, "tell me how that doesn't mean that blah"). All you ever needed was to say something along the lines of "no, that's not what I meant."

(Though, granted, I suppose it can be a fuzzy line between interpretation/evaluation and assertion... I need to think more on this, it's interesting.)

Psy-4 wrote:

Here's a better alternative, that, in fact, represents all of what you are claiming to were trying to say, and could have avoided all of this.

Bizarro Adagio wrote:

First, there's the "anything that happened." Are you saying that the Catholic Church putting women being priests on a level with the molestation of little boys is nothing special or noteworthy? Could you clarify, because otherwise, if that's the case... wow, that's fucked up.

Fucking words, how do they work?

Fair enough. I'll admit I do tend to sometimes be a little circuitous. I'll be sure to always phrase my interpretations as a direct question in the future so as not to confuse you (and I say that with as little facetiousness as humanly possible).

You know, the worst thing is that they wouldn't dared to have compared the ordaining of female priests to child abuse if they didn't really BELIEVE it.

Either that, or these idiots have no idea how terrible child abuse really is.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

You know, the worst thing is that they wouldn't dared to have compared the ordaining of female priests to child abuse if they didn't really BELIEVE it.

Either that, or these idiots have no idea how terrible child abuse really is.

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

Seriously, Harley. That's what makes the news so terrible. Hence, why it is in the "Why God Why" news section. Why else would they make the ruling? What's the other option? They just decided to say that women becoming priests is just as bad as raping children for the lolz? That the Catholic Church is the longest running, largest, and most well-organized trolling conspiracy since the dawn of man?

Mr.Doobie wrote:

That the Catholic Church is the longest running, largest, and most well-organized trolling conspiracy since the dawn of man?

Dan Brown would like to have a word with you.

Jay/Cris wrote:

Mr.Doobie wrote:

That the Catholic Church is the longest running, largest, and most well-organized trolling conspiracy since the dawn of man?

Dan Brown would like to have a word with you.

Or he would, if he wasn't too busy hiding under his couch wrapping tinfoil around his head to avoid Illuminati mind control rays.

I was going to ask if we all were really going to bother with Psy-4, but then I remembered how long the Love-Shy thread was.

Verandering wrote:

I think I am the most subtle baiter on this forum.

Derp.

Not gonna bother displaying your post, Psy.
But just keep on thinking of me as my avatar, ugly and perpetually insane. It's ok.

Wait.

Did Psy just.

What.

Hey, pointing out the obvious when nobody else has pointed it out so far isn't retardation.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Hey, pointing out the obvious when nobody else has pointed it out so far isn't retardation.

Quick, Harley, it's your chance to a +1 post before someone else states that the water is wet!

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.

Of course you don't, Penguin. You don't care about anything that doesn't affect your particular demographic.

Psy-4 wrote:

Here's a better alternative, that, in fact, represents all of what you are claiming to were trying to say, and could have avoided all of this.

Bizarro Adagio wrote:

First, there's the "anything that happened." Are you saying that the Catholic Church putting women being priests on a level with the molestation of little boys is nothing special or noteworthy? Could you clarify, because otherwise, if that's the case... wow, that's fucked up.

OH PLEASE PSY (who I suspect has me on Ignore), if anyone dared to use the phrase "fucked up" to describe something they thought you meant, you'd have done the same pathetic dance you always do, bawwwing about people putting words in your mouth and then crying to whatever mod showed up (loved that part, by the way) that everyone else "gets a pass" when it comes to picking on you.

Adagio wrote:

In all honesty, I think you're wanting me to be a little more confrontational than I actually am.

Shorter Psy-4:

Quote :

I WANT TO WIIIIIIN!

Verandering wrote:

Not gonna bother displaying your post, Psy.
But just keep on thinking of me as my avatar, ugly and perpetually insane. It's ok.

Okay, you're gonna have to tell me what this is all about.

That time when Psy told Nihilist he shouldn't be asking for advice on picking up women because he has a Kirk avatar.

The Unoriginal wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Hey, pointing out the obvious when nobody else has pointed it out so far isn't retardation.

Quick, Harley, it's your chance to a +1 post before someone else states that the water is wet!

Look who's talking.

My original point was, I can't believe they look down on women this much. Or think so little of child molestation. Actually, it's probably the latter, considering how so many priests and so on walk away from child abuse charges and yet still remain members of the clergy yet a woman having an abortion is worthy of excommunication - if child abuse isn't so SERIOUS, then it's okay for it to happen AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.

It makes a warped sort of sense. Screwing around with Church doctrine? That's an eternal damnation. Molesting children? Best believe that's an eternal damnation.

Of course, what with all the things the Catholic church considers mortal sins, that means every one of us who ever fapped and didn't repent is spending the afterlife with pedophiles and Hitler for roommates.

As for the church dictating who is and isn't called by God to the priesthood, that's another matter entirely as it is Catholic teaching that God simply does not call women to be priests. If they are called to a dedicated religious life like that, it would be as a nun.

The whole thing goes back to Paul (that fucking asshole) who insisted it was a violation of God's law for a women to teach anything to or have any power over a man. The whole reason women can't become priests is due to an outdated, misogynistic comment by one guy who didn't really understand Jesus' teachings that well to begin with.

What a joke.

Oh, I bet he understood God's teachings very well. I bet he carefully scoured the Bible for metaphors that could be twisted to be taken literally, or places where translation had been poor.