I read something that said the reason they were fined was not because they denied to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding but because they published the lesbian couple's address and the couple as getting hate mail and such. Then I read an article that said that wasn't accurate So in summation, . . . IDK
It could be that, because of how rapidly technology is changing our world at a ridiculous, unprecedented rate. I'm growing up in a MUCH different world than my parents and kids coming up now seem to be growing up in a MUCH different world than my parents. Tangentially I guess that has something to do with marketing and industrialism, but also the philosophical pursuit or progression for the sake of progression.
As for identity politics, I guess I am a fan and think there are many genuinely positive applications of it. Of course it can be pushed too far, but that doesn't mean it's entirely useless. As much as you might love to think you're capable of being purely objective in rational we ALL have biases and prejudices that can color how we interpret facts and data. And the thing is when you are part of a dominant group that thinks and tends to behave a certain way you never HAVE TO examine your own biases in a critical light because well, you are in the majority. You dominate. Congratulations. Doesn't mean you SHOULD NOT examine how who you are and where and how you were incubated in whatever culture you came up in, but you can get along just fine without having to do so.
In addition I don't think it's (always) entirely an ad-hominem to dismiss someone's ideas based on who they are. An idea in isolation can usually not be attacked unless you look at the logic and biases (even if they're philosophical biases) behind them. So when someone for example, espouses the typical WASP view in just about everything I'm going to question whether he has taken more than five seconds to consider another viewpoint, which is important because people standing in different places can give me different information (FACTS) which will hopefully get at a more complete picture of the truth. But until someone shows me evidence that they are capable of questioning their own biases and/or deviate from their respective cohorts (whether we're talking about race/gender/religion etc.) they most likely (if I'm just rolling the dice) believe the things they do "just because" they grew up that way. That's why conversion stories are so compelling. It takes a greater amount of energy to uproot and change one's entire philosophy and/or religion than to remain with the same one. So, again rolling the dice, who does the seeker lend more credence to, the convert or the life-long believer? One would assume the convert, having tested her own assumptions and biases and found them lacking, is more capable of looking at things more objectively and critically where the life-long believer might just be blinded to her own biases. I will also state that I could list all of my demographic info right now and OF COURSE that doesn't capture who I am as an individual. There are qualitative factors that cannot easily be assessed by categorization. However, if you wanted to take a guess with that information at some of the things about my personality and beliefs, you may hit quite a few right on the head. However when we're studying movements/beliefs/behaviors/etc of MASSIVE amounts of people we need to categorize in order to make sense of things (I'm thinking along the lines of those psychological and sociological studies we're always citing). We know about differences between groups, but unless we're looking at case studies, differences amongst individuals are harder to quantify and that's probably why they're not dealt with that often. I think that's OK, so long as we recognize this grouping does not capture individuals entirely, even though it may tell us much (or even a little bit) about them.
But in all serious I don't know how useful this article is. What the hell are people to do but listen to the current Magisterium? Not all the Church's 1.something billion Catholics can be scholars and plow through ancient church documents and current documents and then weigh one against the other. They're too busy starving or feeding their family or just trying to survive for the most part. And for those of us in the developed world we're just too beaver dam distracted anyway. If this author's thesis is correct then, and most Catholics (even those who are not heterodox) have eschewed tradition in one's daily deliberations (not entirely sure what he meant by this) what does he propose to fix it? Without any solution it's just a lot of theorizing to me that has no practical application and is therefore useless to most people besides the small handful of people who have the luxury to philosophize and the fortitude to "plow through" massive amounts of literature.
ermagerd I'm halfway through this croutons article, does it get any better? edit: I'm finished. There are a few good points but it's written really crappily and makes a lot of stupid points as well, but eh it's the internet no need to go on a crusade against it. I give it a 1.5/5 stars
Yes if people are uneducated and don't know that a fetus has a brain/heart etc then I guess this would shock them and hopefully "win them over" but most educated people prowling the internet know this, they just A) don't acknowledge the personhood of the fetus or b) think the personhood of the mother outweighs that of the fetus. So perhaps it has a limited effect among certain audiences. However, I don't find this adds to the horror of abortion as someone pro-life.
As an aside, how does one feel about lying, which I thought was a sin, to obtain this information?
Does it even matter if they ARE selling aborted fetal tissue? Most of us here believe abortion is an abomination and a terrible crime against the least of these. Profiting off it would be bad, if that's what's going on, but even if they aren't the rot of the issue still remains. This phenomenon is likened to simple "tissue donation," because the individual's life and rights are not recognized. Who really cares if they are getting kickbacks for tissue donation? I just think scandals like these don't do too much to advance the pro-life cause. Maybe for a few people who ride the fence, but for the most part . . . Idk
I just don't know how much I believe that homosexuality is mostly or always rooted in the same-sex parental relationship. I'm sure there are cases where this is an issue, it may even be a great number of cases, but there's no literature I've read that endorses this hypothesis (although I'm sure studies are skewed being political and all) and in my anecdotal experience it's a mixed bag. And then this might cause people to really psychoanalyze and question whether they have a good enough relationship with mom or dad and, no relationship is perfect. But other than that he had great advice.
You don't have control over people's reactions. If you want to whinge about that, be my guest. A forum is a place for discussion. There are formats more suited to "just letting people know about an event" than an internet forum, but since you wanted to let the people of phatmass know . . . well you got a discussion where you didn't *want* one. And now we're having an even more ridiculous discussion. Started by YOU. It's ironic in way, is it not?