Catholics Blame Gays for their Pedophile Problem

[tumbleweed41]

LOL people already had all the other options to choose from, the only one they didn't have was the option of abortion as a contraceptive, which is the option Pro-Choice people were fighting to include.

Actually, the choice of abortion began to be limited in the 1820's and by 1965, all fifty states banned abortion, with some exceptions which varied by state: to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest, or if the fetus was deformed.
In 1973, the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade rendered most state anti-abortian laws null. Bringing the choice of abortion back into play.
Thus completing the Choice of Pro-Choice.

But this is getting way off topic. My apologies to the OP author.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Pro-Choice = The added choice of abortion. People already had a choice of options, Pro-Choice just wanted to add one more option, the option of abortion. Therefore Pro-Choice does in reality = Pro-Abortion, or the added choice of abortion.

Why am I not surprised to see you intentionally misrepresent a premise that you don't agree with? Honest debate is simply not possible with you.

At the moment, the only person I know of, that has implied that rape is somehow okay, is you. Albeit, I am not sure how many other posters support you, as I haven't read all of their posts. In reality, from time to time, I do run into people with such views as you, however after showing them logic and reason, many understand what I am trying to say to them.

You have been told repeatedly, in a straightforward, unmistakable manner, exactly what my position is regarding rape. I have reported your post to the moderators. If you cannot be honest with yourself, I don't care. On the other hand, if you want to lie about myself or my position when you absolutely know that you are lying, then you are crossing a line of decency that normal people respect.

As for your claims of "logic and reason", well, I'll give you credit for at least spelling the terms correctly, even if you don't know what they mean.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Stalking are we?

No, just checking your claims, since you have a pretty poor track record. Or are we supposed to see the name "AxisMundi" and automatically take everything you post as gospel? Since you posted it in this thread, I thought I'd check your claims. Turns out that you were wrong - again.

Should we expect a correction or retraction?

Didn't read my whole response, did we?

Unfortunately for you, I read it quite thoroughly.

The link was an old one I had sitting in my favs folder.

So your excuse for posting a false claim is that you didn't bother to fact check your own claim?

I was unaware that Maudie Celia Hopkins passed away in '08, I've been absent from that community since '06.

Not a problem. You could have included that disclaimer in the post, but since you didn't bother to, I took you to mean that you knew what you were talking about, and were making a factual claim. I guess I should have known that you were simply making another unfounded claim.


How are we to read your posts from this point on? Are we to take them simply at face value, assuming that you don't bother with facts, or are we expected to double check all of your claims? If we do have to double check everything you post, are we to be considered "stalkers"?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

LOL people already had all the other options to choose from, the only one they didn't have was the option of abortion as a contraceptive, which is the option Pro-Choice people were fighting to include.

Abortion has been around as long as mankind has walked the earth. Some are elective, some are not. It did not come into existence when American politics discovered it was a hot button issue.

Also, your implication that all abortions are simply a form of contraceptive is disengenuous, dishonest, and intentionally misleading. Right in your wheelhouse.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

LOL...

You certainly struggle with that nervous laugh. Almost like a kid that knows he's been caught doing something he knows is wrong.

You build your argument on stawmen and fairytales.

You obviously don't know what a strawman argument is. Not surprising, so let me provide a link for you, so that you can educate yourself (assuming you wish to): Logical Fallacies» Straw Man Fallacy

Take a moment to read and (hopefully) to understand that article. Then come back to us and make a quick apology so that we can move on with the thread.

Denial of reality doesn't help you.

And yet, you seem to be relying on it quite extensively.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Actually, the choice of abortion began to be limited in the 1820's and by 1965, all fifty states banned abortion, with some exceptions which varied by state: to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest, or if the fetus was deformed.

I had no idea that the limitation of abortion in the US began that long ago. Thanks, Tumbleweed.

You learn something new every day.

 

[AxisMundi]

So let's say the guy's right. It's a gay, gay, gay problem. So gay. All these gay priests doing gay things to boys. Apparently, when it's infiltrated by evil sinful gays, the Church suddenly becomes utterly incapable of regulating them, but instead for some reason has to give them opportunity and license to be as gay as possible with as many boys as possible for as long as possible, and also to do everything in its power to ensure that they are protected from being prosecuted or suffering any negative consequences whatsoever for their evil, sinful, gay actions. ?

The RCC, and it's organizations, will take cheap pot shots at gays where ever possible, even if it means shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[AxisMundi]

That seems like a good assumption and that's what I would have assumed, but the evidence seems to paint a more complicated and diverse reality. There do seem to be people who have a definite preference for the opposite sex but will resort to homosexuality (as the dominant partner) in a prison context. http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/images/Prison_Homosexuality_and_Its_Effect.pdf

And I note in passing that it is complicated in animals as well, male domestic cats for example will mount each other or accept being mounted out of sexual frustration from lack of access to females.

You are confusing homosexuality with homosexual sex, two different subjects.

A man who turns to another man in a prison setting will most likely return to women once they are released, and certainly isn't going to want to marry another man once outside either.

 

[footprints]

Actually, the choice of abortion began to be limited in the 1820's and by 1965, all fifty states banned abortion, with some exceptions which varied by state: to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest, or if the fetus was deformed.
In 1973, the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade rendered most state anti-abortian laws null. Bringing the choice of abortion back into play.
Thus completing the Choice of Pro-Choice.

But this is getting way off topic. My apologies to the OP author.

So what you are saying is abortion was never abolished in the United States, and Yes Abortion was always in play for traumatic reasons, which is why I specifically said contraception, which is what Pro-Choice was fighting for. The right of a mother, who wasn't raped, where mother or child wasn't in life threatening danger et al, to choose abortion. Roe of course tried to use the avenue of Rape in a complete distortion of the truth for if she was raped, she could have had an abortion under the current rules of the day.

The main premise behind the Pro-Choice movement, was never to keep abortion as a choice, but to educate people on how not to get pregnant, to abolish abortion as a contraceptive choice, albeit for intellignet reasons, not a decision of moral value.

And make no mistake, it is still the premise of Pro-Choice movements around the world today, to abolish the need for abortion, through education.

 

[footprints]

Why am I not surprised to see you intentionally misrepresent a premise that you don't agree with? Honest debate is simply not possible with you.

I have been a member of Pro-Choice groups since their conception, even when they were called Pro-Abortion. I do not delude myself of the truth, neither in what they were once called, nor the cause we are fighting for. And, if you are unsure of the cause Pro-Choice is fighting for, let me tell you, ultimately, it is to abolish abortion through sexual education of the general society, so silly mistakes do not happen in the first place, nor people subjected to needless operations, which do not take place without an element of danger, to the woman in question.

You have been told repeatedly, in a straightforward, unmistakable manner, exactly what my position is regarding rape. I have reported your post to the moderators. If you cannot be honest with yourself, I don't care. On the other hand, if you want to lie about myself or my position when you absolutely know that you are lying, then you are crossing a line of decency that normal people respect.

I understand your position as it pertains to rape. In one instance you find it intolerable, in another position you couldn't care less if a person gets raped or not. I have known this since you first told me. If you are unsure of the position you are debating, let me refresh your memory.

Like Father Heathen (and a couple of others), I simply do not care if the pedophile gets mistreated (to any degree) while he is incarcerated. I do not care if his sheets are not washed twice weekly. I do not care if he has poor dental hygene. I do not care if he isn't provided a well lighted reading area. I do not care if they have to wear argyle socks with wingtipped shoes.

Get it? I don't care. Can you follow that?

Now understand the position I am debating, if rape is not stopped at every position in society, which includes gaols, those who overlook it, those who turn a blind eye to it, are supporting rape, and are just as guility as the perpetrator and are just as repsonsible for the next victim.

Either you are totally against rape, or you are for it. The position you take, you are saying you don't care in one instance if rape takes place. You want it both ways, then add your justification to prove your position right. I am sorry, I just don't buy your justification, it is built on an unreasoned premise.

As for your claims of "logic and reason", well, I'll give you credit for at least spelling the terms correctly, even if you don't know what they mean.

LOL when justification is all a person relies on to claim "logic and reason," one knows right from the start, there is no logic and reason there, else they would have used it, instead of the justification they give.

 

[footprints]

Abortion has been around as long as mankind has walked the earth. Some are elective, some are not. It did not come into existence when American politics discovered it was a hot button issue.

Also, your implication that all abortions are simply a form of contraceptive is disengenuous, dishonest, and intentionally misleading. Right in your wheelhouse.

I can only agree, abortion has been round for thousands of years.

LOL if you read that all abortions are simply a form of contraception, that has come from your brain, not mine and clearly shows the unreasoned position of your debate. I specifically said, all other options were already in place. Roe as in some other offered, uninformed example given, already had the option of abortion if she had been raped or any other such trauma in life which affects the mother and/or child.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

You are consistent, Footprints. At first, I thought you were incapable of discerning the difference between Pro-choice and Pro-abortion, as well as someone being ambivalent about the fate of a pedophile and someone being "pro-rape". If I were to play the game that you embrace, I guess I would label your position as "Pro-pedophilia". I'm sure that you would see that as an accurate portrayal of your position.

After this last justification of yours, I now realize that you actually understand the difference, but you insist on intentionally misrepresenting any position with which you do not agree. I guess you feel that others are incapable of noticing the dishonesty of your argument.

I'm sure that you will continue to try to frame the debate in your terms, but I will continue to call you on it.

I don't know what the moderators have chosen to do, regarding the post in which you called me "pro-rape", but I can see that you aren't mature enough to apologize for such a slanderous statement. In retrospect, I guess I was giving your too much credit, to expect otherwise.

 

[footprints]

You certainly struggle with that nervous laugh. Almost like a kid that knows he's been caught doing something he knows is wrong.

LOL, my laugh and my smile are natural.

You obviously don't know what a strawman argument is. Not surprising, so let me provide a link for you, so that you can educate yourself (assuming you wish to): Logical Fallacies» Straw Man Fallacy

LOL of course not. Why heaven forbid that the logical fallacies which you are trying to use in your debates could ever be strawmen. LOL how could they ever be strawmen, when you see so much logic and reason in what you are saying.

Take a moment to read and (hopefully) to understand that article. Then come back to us and make a quick apology so that we can move on with the thread.

LOL. I don't need to read an article for which I already know the answer.

One day, you may even understand human perception, and what makes you conclude that way. If you are unsure, I will give you the answer, logic and reason, albeit logic and reason from your position of belief.

And yet, you seem to be relying on it quite extensively.

And so says your perception.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

LOL, my laugh and my smile are natural.

LOL of course not. Why heaven forbid that the logical fallacies which you are trying to use in your debates could ever be strawmen. LOL how could they ever be strawmen, when you see so much logic and reason in what you are saying.

LOL. I don't need to read an article for which I already know the answer.

One day, you may even understand human perception, and what makes you conclude that way. If you are unsure, I will give you the answer, logic and reason, albeit logic and reason from your position of belief.

And so says your perception.

See, you're improving already. In five paragraphs, you managed to get by on just four "LOL's". No need to thank me. Seeing a lesser person improve themselves is its own reward.

PS - don't sell yourself short. Follow the link, and learn what a "strawman" really is. You may surprise yourself by learning something. Don't be afraid to learn.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I can only agree, abortion has been round for thousands of years.

Finally. You got one right. I honestly never thought I'd live to see the day.

LOL if you read that all abortions are simply a form of contraception, that has come from your brain, not mine and clearly shows the unreasoned position of your debate. I specifically said, all other options were already in place. Roe as in some other offered, uninformed example given, already had the option of abortion if she had been raped or any other such trauma in life which affects the mother and/or child.

Dang. I really thought you had cleared a hurdle on the "LOL's". Keep trying.

Since you r=fuse to acknowledge the distinction between "Pro-choice" and "Pro-abortion", there's really no reason to respond to any of the rest of the claptrap that you post regarding the issue.

 

[footprints]

You are consistent, Footprints. At first, I thought you were incapable of discerning the difference between Pro-choice and Pro-abortion, as well as someone being ambivalent about the fate of a pedophile and someone being "pro-rape". If I were to play the game that you embrace, I guess I would label your position as "Pro-pedophilia". I'm sure that you would see that as an accurate portrayal of your position.

LOL it wouldn't surprise me if you did label my position as Pro-paedophilia, such is the unreasoned position of your logic and debate. Though if you took that stance, I am sure your own logic of debate would also conclude, that he/she who protests longests and hardest, that he/she who calls for the hardest and swiftest penalties, generally has something to hide, which is normally their own position as they try to divert attention away from themselves.

Either a person is against rape, or they are not. Are you against rape at every corner, or can you justify rape being right in some instances?

If you are against rape, in any situation, than your beliefs align with mine. If not, your beliefs directly oppose mine.

After this last justification of yours, I now realize that you actually understand the difference, but you insist on intentionally misrepresenting any position with which you do not agree. I guess you feel that others are incapable of noticing the dishonesty of your argument.

LOL.

I'm sure that you will continue to try to frame the debate in your terms, but I will continue to call you on it.

LOL.

I don't know what the moderators have chosen to do, regarding the post in which you called me "pro-rape", but I can see that you aren't mature enough to apologize for such a slanderous statement. In retrospect, I guess I was giving your too much credit, to expect otherwise.

The moderators will be their own judge. Just like you and me they have a perception and I am sure they will rule accordingly to it. Personally, from my perspective, if you don't want an answer to a question, you shouldn't ask it, albeit one should stick with the reality of the answer given, and not what an individuals mind reads into it.

Topics like this can be emotionally based, unless you overcome the emotion and base your position in logic and reason alone. Your position is clearly emotionally based, and the logic and reason in your position, reflect the emotional element in it.

 

[footprints]

See, you're improving already. In five paragraphs, you managed to get by on just four "LOL's". No need to thank me. Seeing a lesser person improve themselves is its own reward.

PS - don't sell yourself short. Follow the link, and learn what a "strawman" really is. You may surprise yourself by learning something. Don't be afraid to learn.

LOL, when emotionally based, and emotionally charged logic and reason becomes the voice of reason, then I will start believing in your strawman analogies.

 

[Sunstone]

It's highly amusing how the Church comes out fighting like trailer park trash when it feels threatened. Does stress reveal what it really is?

 

[footprints]

Finally. You got one right. I honestly never thought I'd live to see the day.


Dang. I really thought you had cleared a hurdle on the "LOL's". Keep trying.

Since you r=fuse to acknowledge the distinction between "Pro-choice" and "Pro-abortion", there's really no reason to respond to any of the rest of the claptrap that you post regarding the issue.

LOL it is pretty hard for me to deny reality, for I was an active supporter of Pro-Choice, when it was called Pro-Abortion. Hey, but don't let that stop your argument, I am finding it very amusing how far a debater will go to deny reality, as a base point of their argument.

 

[footprints]

It's highly amusing how the Church comes out fighting like trailer park trash when it feels threatened. Does stress reveal what it really is?

Human nature will never cease to amaze me, and I always get a good laugh over it to. Though churches are not the only ones who do this. Governments, political parties, companies, organisations, families and even individuals are all guilty of trying to hush things up or sweep it under the carpet from time to time.

In Australia we have sports clubs, who try it all the time. The media doesn't let them get away with it either, and what they do to governments and political parties, well it is Watergate, isn't it.