New Obamacare Thread

[KnightofChrist]

Maybe you can explain it better, like I really dont get it. Does there have to be anoher rgroup? Im confused as to what youre looking for

 

Yes, consistency is very important, there can not be one set of rules for one group that advocates bigotry and mass killings for those they hate or are completely indifferent to, and another set of rules for another group that effectively advocates the very same thing.

 

Let's start with defining terms, most people today generally define a "hate group" along the lines of a collective or organization of persons that choose to deny that a certain type of people are persons/fully human, and that violence against and/or extermination of these persons is justifiable. 

 

It is universally believed by morally sound individuals that advocating for, defending, or belonging to such groups is completely unacceptable in a civilized society. Even when the advocate, defender, or member disagrees with the 'bad policies' aka bigotry of the group but agrees with other 'good policies'. An example would be advocating for, defending, or belonging to the KKK even if one personally disagrees with that group's bigotry but agrees with other 'good policies'.

 

 

Are there any other groups that exist where is it acceptable to advocate for, defend, or belong to even though the group(s) advocate bigotry and mass killings?

Edited April 4, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[CrossCuT]

The Church doesn't condemn contraception because it kills babies. If that were the case it wouldn't object to condoms. Have you ever looked up Church teaching on contraception?

I know very well what the church says. It makes you hate your partner, it makes you hate babies, it makes you hate everything basically. Logical side effects.

 

 

But FP, minus the contraception stuff, did you read anything else I posted? Do you have any feedback? 

Id be curious to see if you agreed/disagreed with anything I said in reference to your sources or just my basic comments towards the end.

I put a lot of time into responding to your stuff so Id appreciate your feedback.

 

Yes, consistency is very important, there can not be one set of rules for one group that advocates bigotry and mass killings for those they hate or are completely indifferent to, and another set of rules for another group that effectively advocates the very same thing.

 

Let's start with defining terms, most people today generally define a "hate group" along the lines of a collective or organization of persons that choose to deny that a certain type of people are persons/fully human, and that violence against and/or extermination of these persons is justifiable. 

 

It is universally believed by morally sound individuals that advocating for, defending, or belonging to such groups is completely unacceptable in a civilized society. Even when the advocate, defender, or member disagrees with the 'bad policies' aka bigotry of the group but agrees with other 'good policies'. An example would be advocating for, defending, or belonging to the KKK even if one personally disagrees with that group's bigotry but agrees with other 'good policies'.

 

 

Are there any other groups that exist where is it acceptable to advocate for, defend, or belong to even though the group(s) advocate bigotry and mass killings?

Different sets of rules huh? Who is advocating that?

 

Im still trying to understand what youre getting at. Are you saying that everyone fits into either Democrat or Republican? Therefore if someone identifies with certain aspects of one they have to identify with the whole thing?

 

Do you think I am advocating for abortion because I agree with democratic economic views?

[PhuturePriest]

I know very well what the church says. It makes you hate your partner, it makes you hate babies, it makes you hate everything basically. Logical side effects.

 

Why are you even still going to Mass if you believe the Church makes you hate everything?

[Lilllabettt]

I know very well what the church says. It makes you hate your partner, it makes you hate babies, it makes you hate everything basically. Logical side effects.

 

:headdesk:

 

the Church is not opposed to contraception because of the "side effects."

the side effects are an important reason that contraception sux.

that is not why the Church opposes it.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[CrossCuT]

Why are you even still going to Mass if you believe the Church makes you hate everything?

Hint: sarcasm

 

 

Srsly. Do you have any interest in discussing the stuff I posted for you? Im kind of upset that you dont seem to care that I took out time specifically to write all that.

 

Or would you rather sit here and diminish my convictions? I hope you dont do that as a priest to the people who will come to your for guidance on difficult subjects.

[CrossCuT]

Why do I even go to mass? Seriously FP? You dont think that was out of line at all? I am still rolling in shock that you even said that. Honestly.

[KnightofChrist]

Different sets of rules huh? Who is advocating that?
 
Im still trying to understand what youre getting at. Are you saying that everyone fits into either Democrat or Republican? Therefore if someone identifies with certain aspects of one they have to identify with the whole thing?
 
Do you think I am advocating for abortion because I agree with democratic economic views?

What I am stating is that it is wrong to advocate for, defend or be a member of a group that

• Denies that a certain group of people are humans/persons.
• Finds the extermination and mass murder of these persons justifiable.

I believe that you very likely agree with me in this regard so long as it is not the Democrat Party that we are talking about. If I am correct this would be a contradiction, why would it be acceptable to advocate for, defend or be a member of a one such group that denies that a certain people are humans/persons, and finds the extermination and mass murder of these persons justifiable, but not another that effectively argues the same thing?

 

Again, can you please give me a list of groups where it is acceptable to advocate for, defend or be a member of even though that group or groups

• Denies that a certain group of people are humans/persons.
• Finds the extermination and mass murder of these persons justifiable.

Edited April 4, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[PhuturePriest]

Why do I even go to mass? Seriously FP? You dont think that was out of line at all? I am still rolling in shock that you even said that. Honestly.

 

You have displayed complete disregard for Church teaching because it doesn't aline with your beliefs. Fair enough. But the Church is completely built off Papal Infallibility. The Pope has infallibly declared that contraception is intrinsically immoral. If you disagree with that, it means that you think the Church is not infallible, which begs the question: why are you Catholic if you don't think the Church is infallible, when a rule for being a Catholic is believing that the Church is infallible?

[Lilllabettt]

Why do I even go to mass? Seriously FP? You dont think that was out of line at all? I am still rolling in shock that you even said that. Honestly.

 

 

I think its an honest question. Why do people say they are Catholic if they don't believe what the Church teaches?

 

I can understand not understanding. I can understand wanting and striving and praying to believe, even if in the moment a person does not believe.

 

Not believing what a religion teaches - fine. Coming to a place of peace with that - fine.

But then continuing to go on thinking of yourself and presenting yourself as a member of that religion. - ????

 

Why do people do it?

[CrossCuT]

 

What I am stating is that it is wrong to advocate for, defend or be a member of a group that

• Denies that a certain group of people are humans/persons.
• Finds the extermination and mass murder of these persons justifiable.

I believe that you very likely agree with me in this regard so long as it is not the Democrat Party that we are talking about. If I am correct this would be a contradiction, why would it be acceptable to advocate for, defend or be a member of a one such group that denies that a certain people are humans/persons, and finds the extermination and mass murder of these persons justifiable, but not another that effectively argues the same thing?

 

Again, can you please give me a list of groups where it is acceptable to advocate for, defend or be a member of even though that group or groups

• Denies that a certain group of people are humans/persons.
• Finds the extermination and mass murder of these persons justifiable.

 

 

Oh I see! You think Im a full fledged, 100% Democrat! (which I may or may not have said willy nilly because sometimes I have a not nice fascination with getting peoples reactions) but no my friend, I am not a 100% Democrat.

 

I disagree with the notion that most people are 100% anything in their political views. I am sure there are people who are, but I am not. I feel that identifying solely with one party is a misrepresentation. I agree with certain platforms the democrats put forward, and I disagree on certain platforms. Similarly to how I agree with certain platforms the republicans put forward and I disagree on certain platforms.

 

I do not believe any group can say/do anything to justify their stance on murder, discrimination, or other lame things.

 

I think we are essentially saying the same thing but you have this idea that I am giving the Dems a pass because....because rainbows? I dont know why you think Id give them a pass. 

[CrossCuT]

You have displayed complete disregard for Church teaching because it doesn't aline with your beliefs. Fair enough. But the Church is completely built off Papal Infallibility. The Pope has infallibly declared that contraception is intrinsically immoral. If you disagree with that, it means that you think the Church is not infallible, which begs the question: why are you Catholic if you don't think the Church is infallible, when a rule for being a Catholic is believing that the Church is infallible?

 

 

I think its an honest question. Why do people say they are Catholic if they don't believe what the Church teaches?

 

I can understand not understanding. I can understand wanting and striving and praying to believe, even if in the moment a person does not believe.

 

Not believing what a religion teaches - fine. Coming to a place of peace with that - fine.

But then continuing to go on thinking of yourself and presenting yourself as a member of that religion. - ????

 

Why do people do it?

 

 

What have I specifically expressed that goes against church teaching? I have said that I am against contraception. Just because Im open to discussing it doesnt mean that I think its the bees knees.

 

 

 

And FP, Im going to take it that you have completely disregarded everything I wrote in my long post. Probably because you have nothing to counter and you latched onto the only thing you felt you could drive into me. Typical.

[Lilllabettt]

What have I specifically expressed that goes against church teaching? I have said that I am against contraception. Just because Im open to discussing it doesnt mean that I think its the bees knees.

 

 

 

And FP, Im going to take it that you have completely disregarded everything I wrote in my long post. Probably because you have nothing to counter and you latched onto the only thing you felt you could drive into me. Typical.

 

 

Very slippery.

 

Lets try being honest and direct.

 

Yes or no: do you think the Church's teaching on contraception can change?

Yes or no: do you think the Church's teaching on the morality of homosexual sexual activity can change?

Yes or no: do you think the Church's teaching on the ordination of women can change?

 

Not will change or should change - but can change?

 

Yes or no.

[NotreDame]

Or would you rather sit here and diminish my convictions? I hope you dont do that as a priest to the people who will come to your for guidance on difficult subjects.

 

I love the guilt trip angle you used here.  Props for that. 
 

[PhuturePriest]

What have I specifically expressed that goes against church teaching? I have said that I am against contraception. Just because Im open to discussing it doesnt mean that I think its the bees knees.

 

 

 

And FP, Im going to take it that you have completely disregarded everything I wrote in my long post. Probably because you have nothing to counter and you latched onto the only thing you felt you could drive into me. Typical.

 

You haven't openly said something like "I support gay romantic relationships," or "I favor contraception," but you have said things that say that without actually saying it openly. A few posts ago you at the very least implied contraception wasn't evil, because the Church is against it since it "passively kills babies, and what if it's proven that it doesn't?" This implies that you think contraception would be accepted and okay if it was proven that it didn't kill babies, even though Church teaching has nothing to do with it killing babies and all about it going against God's plan for sexuality.

 

And I read your post. I didn't reply to it not because I didn't have anything to say, but because I knew nothing I could say is going to change your opinion in any sort of way, and so thus it is useless to argue with you about it. No study I can give you will ever be good enough for you. This is typical in internet debates, and I don't participate in debates that rely on statistics, because you can find any statistic from a renowned study that proves whatever point you want to make.

[KnightofChrist]

Oh I see! You think Im a full fledged, 100% Democrat! (which I may or may not have said willy nilly because sometimes I have a not nice fascination with getting peoples reactions) but no my friend, I am not a 100% Democrat.

I disagree with the notion that most people are 100% anything in their political views. I am sure there are people who are, but I am not. I feel that identifying solely with one party is a misrepresentation. I agree with certain platforms the democrats put forward, and I disagree on certain platforms. Similarly to how I agree with certain platforms the republicans put forward and I disagree on certain platforms.

I do not believe any group can say/do anything to justify their stance on murder, discrimination, or other lame things.

No, that is not what I believe, that is not what I said, that is not the answer to the question I asked.
 

I think we are essentially saying the same thing but you have this idea that I am giving the Dems a pass because....because rainbows? I dont know why you think Id give them a pass.

No, we are not, based on our discussion I am lead to believe your stance is that it is acceptable to advocate for, defend, or belong to a group that denies that certain people are humans/persons, and finds the extermination and mass murder of these persons justifiable. So long as the advocate, defender, or member disagrees with those bad policies and only agrees with the 'good polices'. I would like to know which other groups or parities can this logic be used?

[CrossCuT]

FP, Lilll, if you guys are interested in talking about  the topics Ive posted on with the relationship of abortions and economy etc, let me know.

 

 

No, that is not what I believe, that is not what I said, that is not the answer to the question I asked.
 

No, we are not, based on our discussion I am lead to believe your stance is that it is acceptable to advocate for, defend, or belong to a group that denies that certain people are humans/persons, and finds the extermination and mass murder of these persons justifiable. So long as the advocate, defender, or member disagrees with those bad policies and only agrees with the 'good polices'. I would like to know which other groups or parities can this logic be used?

Ok, Ill set you straight then. I do not believe its ok to advocate for a group that does bad stuff like murder babies.

[Lilllabettt]

FP, Lilll, if you guys are interested in talking about  the topics Ive posted on with the relationship of abortions and economy etc, let me know.

 

Okay. But the record will show you refused to answer a yes/no question clarifying your fidelity to the Church.  Your reasons are your own but I think people will draw their own conclusions.

[CrossCuT]

And I read your post. I didn't reply to it not because I didn't have anything to say, but because I knew nothing I could say is going to change your opinion in any sort of way, and so thus it is useless to argue with you about it. No study I can give you will ever be good enough for you. This is typical in internet debates, and I don't participate in debates that rely on statistics, because you can find any statistic from a renowned study that proves whatever point you want to make.

 

So you think that Chastity.com has 100% coherent, logical arguments that are backed up by facts? And arent riddled with causation/correlation problems? (Specifically in the first article you linked)

[PhuturePriest]

Can you repeat the question


Hmm, that is a good question. I havent formulated how I feel about it. I have mixed thoughts and it is entirely hinged on whether or not it passively kills the baby by disrupting implantation. Ibe read conflicting things on that. But I believe in error on the side of caution so no, I dont support it. My opion may change depending on what now studies find but right now I do not.

 

 

Maybe you can explain it better, like I really dont get it. Does there have to be anoher rgroup? Im confused as to what youre looking for


Their stance is based on the fact it passivly kills babies. What if it was shown to not do that?

And what are you fishing for? Have you taken the time to read my post?

 

How do these posts not call into question your loyalty to Church teaching if you not supporting it hinges on whether or not contraception is proven to kill babies?

[KnightofChrist]

Ok, Ill set you straight then. I do not believe its ok to advocate for a group that does bad stuff like murder babies.

And defending and belong to such groups?